Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00409/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00409-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE JAMES,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY TADE, San Diego Sheriffs

Deputy,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15-cv-409-AJB-MDD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER 

TAXING COSTS

(Doc. No. 231)

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kyle James’ (“Plaintiff”) motion to 

review the order taxing costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). (Doc. No. 

231.) Defendant Lance Tade (“Defendant”) opposes the motion. (Doc. No. 233.) Pursuant 

to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the matter suitable for determination on the 

papers and without oral argument. Accordingly, the motion hearing set for June 21, 2018, 

is VACATED. As will be explained in greater detail below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

motion. 

BACKGROUND

On February 14, 2018, based upon a jury verdict, the Court entered judgment in 

favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 223.) Thereafter, on March 2, 2018, 

Defendant submitted a bill of costs in the amount of $2,211.04. (Doc. No. 226 at 1.)

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 235 Filed 06/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD

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

Plaintiff opposed the bill of costs. (Doc. No. 229.) A hearing was then held on the matter 

by the Clerk of Court, on March 22, 2018. (Doc. No. 227; Doc. No. 230 at 1.) On March 

28, 2018, the Clerk of Court ordered Plaintiff pay costs taxed in the amount of $2,211.04. 

(Id. at 2–3.) The division of the costs requested and ordered are detailed below: 

Description Amount(s) Requested Amounts(s) Taxed

Fees of the clerk 

Fees for service of 

summons and subpoenas

$543.54 $543.54

Fees for printed or 

electronically recorded 

transcripts 

$1,712.50 $1,667.50

Fees and disbursements for 

printing

Fees for witnesses

Fees for exemplification 

and copies 

Docket fees under 28 

U.S.C. § 1923

Costs as shown on mandate 

of Court of Appeals

Compensation of courtappointed experts

Compensation/costs of 

interpreters under 28 

U.S.C. § 1828

Other costs as itemized:

TOTAL COSTS TAXES

in favor of Lance Tade

$2,256.04 $2,211.04

(Id.)

LEGAL STANDARD

The in forma pauperis statute provides: “Judgment may be rendered for costs at the 

conclusion of the suit or action as in other proceedings . . . if the judgment against a prisoner 

includes the payment of costs . . . the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of 

the costs ordered.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(1)–(2)(A). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 235 Filed 06/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD

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

provides that, “[u]nless . . . a court order provides otherwise, costs . . . should be allowed 

to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Rule 54 “creates a presumption in favor 

of awarding costs to a prevailing party, but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to 

award costs.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 

2000) (en banc). A court may consider “the losing party’s limited financial resources,” 

“misconduct on the part of the prevailing party,” and any “chilling effect of imposing such

high costs on future civil rights litigants.” Id. at 592. “[I]t is incumbent upon the losing

party to demonstrate why the costs should not be awarded.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 

F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests this Court deny the award of costs because (1) Plaintiff has severely 

limited financial resources; and (2) the award of costs would have a chilling effect on civil 

rights cases. (Doc. No. 231-1 at 3–5.) Defendant mounts in opposition that Plaintiff has not 

established his alleged indigence and that no chilling effect will result from awarding 

Defendant costs. (Doc. No. 233 at 2–4.)

In a civil rights context, “[a] district court must ‘specify reasons’ for its refusal to 

award costs.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 591. In reviewing a motion to 

deny costs, the Ninth Circuit has noted the following reasons for refusing to award costs to 

a prevailing party: (1) the losing party’s limited financial resources; (2) misconduct on the 

part of the prevailing party; (3) whether the issues in the case were close and difficult; (4) 

whether the prevailing party’s recovery was nominal or partial; (5) whether the losing party 

litigated in good faith; and (6) whether the case presented issues of national importance. 

See Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 

2003). 

First, Plaintiff highlights that he is a prisoner that brought this case pro se and that 

his financial situation has not changed or improved since this Court granted him in forma 

pauperis status. (Doc. No. 231-1 at 4.) Unfortunately, courts have held that once costs are 

awarded, “a prisoner cannot avoid responsibility based on indigence.” Janoe v. Stone, No. 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 235 Filed 06/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD

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

06-CV-1511-JM, 2012 WL 70424, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012). Therefore, indigence, 

standing alone, does not justify Plaintiff evading the taxation of costs. Furthermore, the 

Court notes for Plaintiff’s benefit that his concern that he will be unable to pay the costs in 

this case is alleviated by the existence of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2), which provides that 

prisoners are to pay costs incrementally, making “monthly payments of 20 percent of the 

preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s account.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); see 

also Player v. Salas, No. 04CV1761-LAB (WMC), 2007 WL 4250015, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 

Nov. 30, 2007) (stating that in light of §1915’s provision allowing installment payments, 

there is no basis for the incarcerated plaintiff’s fear that he would not be able to pay for 

hygiene items and correspondence supplies unless costs were re-taxed). Thus, while the 

Court is cognizant of Plaintiff’s financial plight, his request that the Court deny the award 

of costs to Defendant because of his indigence ultimately fails. 

On the other hand, the Court finds that the undesirable chilling effect on future civil

rights litigants will be enhanced by an award of costs in this case. The Court notes that no 

bright-line rule defining what precise amount of costs would produce a chilling effect 

exists. However, the Court finds persuasive the analysis and ultimate conclusion in Draper 

v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2016).

In Draper, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s request for 

costs stating that the case had “substantial public importance” as Eighth Amendment cases 

are “important for safeguarding the rights and safety of prisoners.” Id. Moreover, the court 

found that the case turned on “which competing account of events the jurors believed,” that 

the jury deliberated for half a day and several more hours the next morning, and that the 

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment violation survived summary judgment. Id. Thus, in general,

the court found that “the case was close.” Id. Furthermore, the court stated that cost awards 

against prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis has “potential chilling effects.” Id.

Similar to Draper, Plaintiff’s evidence of excessive force was sufficient to survive 

summary judgment. (Doc. No. 148.) Moreover, as the Report and Recommendation stated, 

“this is the usual case where each side tells a different story” and that this was not a case 

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 235 Filed 06/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

15-cv-409-AJB-MDD

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

“where Plaintiff’s version of events is so blatantly contradicted by undisputed evidence . . 

. .” (Doc. No. 140 at 13–14.) Additionally, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status, 

(Doc. No. 21), and he brings claims of excessive force, which is unquestionably a matter 

of substantial public importance. In sum, all of the factors above are appropriate reasons 

for denying costs. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an award of costs against 

Plaintiff would have the potential to chill other meritorious civil rights actions. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request that this Court review the order taxing costs and ultimately 

deny Defendants costs is GRANTED. Defendant will not recover costs in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2018

Case 3:15-cv-00409-AJB-MDD Document 235 Filed 06/07/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5