Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04149/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04149-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TSEGAI HAILE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et

al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-08-4149 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FILED AUGUST 16, 2010,

CONSTRUED AS MOTION FOR REVIEW

OF CLERK’S TAXATION OF COSTS

The Court is in receipt of plaintiff Tsegai Haile’s “Letter to the USDC Clerk,” filed

August 16, 2010, in which plaintiff requests that “the Clerk correct, and vacate (re-tax) its

latest entry of costs taxed against appellant Tsegai Haile.” Because the above-referenced

document consists entirely of legal argument as to why the Clerk’s taxation of costs was

erroneous, the Court construes the document as a motion for review of the Clerk’s action,

pursuant to Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having read and

considered the motion, the Court hereby rules as follows.

First, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the bill of costs was timely filed because it was

filed fourteen days after the date on which judgment was entered against plaintiff. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); Civil L.R. 54-1(a).

Second, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, plaintiff was timely served with the bill of

costs, because plaintiff was represented by counsel on the date the bill of costs was filed

Case 3:08-cv-04149-MMC Document 220 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 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

2

and plaintiff’s counsel was electronically served with the bill of costs fourteen days after the

date on which judgment was entered against plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1); Civil L.R.

54-1(a).

Third, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, plaintiff’s filing of a notice of appeal from the

judgment did not divest the Clerk of jurisdiction to consider the bill of costs. See

Rothenberg v. Security Management Co., 677 F.2d 64 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding “costs may

be taxed after a notice of appeal is filed”).

Fourth, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, plaintiff has failed to show that the bill of

costs, or any request contained therein, is “fraudulent” or that any defendant engaged in

“misconduct” in connection with the bill of costs or otherwise.

Lastly, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, defendants are “presum[ed]” to be entitled to

taxable costs, and plaintiff has failed to show that “severe injustice will result” if the

presumption is not rebutted. See Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th

Cir. 2003) (holding “presumption itself provides all the reason a court needs for awarding

costs”); see also Document No. 217 (Ninth Circuit’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis).

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04149-MMC Document 220 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2