Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00313/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00313-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Keith Preston Nance, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Allen Miser, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-0313-PHX-SMM (DKD) 

 O R D E R 

 The Court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion and entered judgment 

against Plaintiff on September 22, 2014; Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal the following 

week (Docs. 36-37, 38). Defendants filed their application for bill of costs on October 6, 

2014 (Doc. 41). Plaintiff moves to postpose a decision on taxing costs because of the 

appeal. 

 As explained in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-1846, 2014 WL 

4745933, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014), pursuant to the Advisory Committee Notes for 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), “If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the 

court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the 

motion without prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for filing 

after the appeal has been resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) advisory committee notes on 

1993 amendments. This Committee Note has consistently been applied to requests for 

costs as well as claims for fees. See e.g., Friends of Tahoe Forest Access v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Agric., No. 12–1876, 2014 WL 1575622, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014) (exercising its 

Case 2:13-cv-00313-SMM Document 46 Filed 11/04/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

discretion and finding no basis to defer a decision on the bill of costs pending plaintiffs’ 

appeal); Lasic v. Moreno, No. 05–161, 2007 WL 4180655, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 

2007 (“The reasoning of the Advisory Committee’s note is applicable to a ruling on a bill 

of costs.”); accord Pixion Inc. v. PlaceWare Inc., No. 03–2909, 2005 WL 3955889, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. May 26, 2005) (declining to grant a stay on the taxation of costs pending 

appeal). 

 The Court, in its discretion, will deny Plaintiff’s request to defer taxation of costs. 

Defendants, as prevailing parties, have an interest in prompt payment of its costs and the 

fact that Plaintiff has taken an appeal of this Court’s decision does not lessen that interest. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Postpone Bill of 

Costs (Doc. 44) is denied. 

 DATED this 31st day of October, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00313-SMM Document 46 Filed 11/04/14 Page 2 of 2