Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02310/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02310-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 54(d), the Court may take action on a bill of costs prior to action by the

clerk. See BDT Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 405 F.3d 415, 418-19 (6th Cir. 2005) (“the district court has the inherent

and statutory authority to act on motions related to costs prior to any action by the clerk”).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEISER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 LAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C05-02310 MJJ

ORDER DENYING COSTS

Before the Court is Defendant County of Lake’s Bill Of Costs (Docket No. 158), to which

Plaintiff submitted and served objections on February 20, 2008. Defendant seeks $2557.10 in costs.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the prevailing party in a lawsuit may recover its

costs “unless the court otherwise directs.” Rule 54(d) “creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs

to a prevailing party, but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Association of

Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 592 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The

losing party bears the burden of making a showing that an award would be inequitable under the

circumstances. See National Information Servs. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1995),

overruled in part on other grounds, 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In its discretion, the Court declines to award costs in this matter in light of Plaintiff’s indigence.1

 “Indigency is a factor that the district court may properly consider in deciding whether to award costs.”

Case 3:05-cv-02310-MJJ Document 167 Filed 04/01/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Stanley v. University of Southern California, 178 F.3d 169, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff, who

proceeded pro se in this matter, previously filed and substantiated an application for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis, which this Court granted on June 7, 2005. (Docket No. 4.) There is a significant

economic disparity between Plaintiff and the government entity, the County of Lake, seeking to recover

costs in this action. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court regards it as inequitable to

impose Defendant’s requested cost bill on Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court declines to award costs in

this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02310-MJJ Document 167 Filed 04/01/08 Page 2 of 2