Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01871/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01871-11/pdf.json

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

---

- 1 -

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

TONY ROBERTS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

S. HENSLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 15cv1871-LAB (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RETAX COSTS [Dkt. 143];

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

[Dkt. 140]

Presently before the Court are two costs motions related to the March 2019 trial in 

this case. The first is Plaintiff Tony Roberts’ motion to re-tax $2,616.20 in costs the Clerk 

awarded to Defendant N. Sabati as the prevailing party. The second is a motion by Mr. 

Roberts’ pro bono counsel to recover expenses incurred in trying the case. For the 

reasons below, Mr. Roberts’ Motion to Re-Tax Costs is GRANTED and Mr. Roberts’ 

Motion for Reimbursement of Expenses is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Roberts, a state inmate, brought this suit in 2015, alleging that a series of 

prison dentists were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. This deliberate 

indifference, Roberts claimed, led to him developing a series of severe cavities and other 

dental ailments. By the time of trial, only one defendant remained, Dr. N. Sabati. Mr. 

Roberts, who had to that point represented himself pro se, petitioned the Court for 

Case 3:15-cv-01871-LAB-BLM Document 147 Filed 06/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
- 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

appointment of counsel. The Court granted that motion and appointed Amber Lee Eck 

as his trial counsel. Dkts. 86, 87. The case went to trial on March 19, 2019, and the jury 

returned a unanimous verdict in Dr. Sabati’s favor on March 21, 2019. The Court entered 

judgment that same day. 

As the prevailing party, Dr. Sabati moved for costs in the amount of $3,086.20. 

Dkt. 138. The Clerk held a hearing and granted that motion in part, taxing costs against 

Mr. Roberts in the amount of $2,616.20. Dkt. 142. At the same time, Mr. Roberts’ counsel 

moved to recover expenses incurred in trying the case, which is permitted in some 

situations under the Court’s pro bono rules. Dkt. 140. In all, Mr. Roberts’ counsel seeks 

to recover $22,271.81 in expenses, which includes $2,737.86 for transcripts, $204.95 for 

demonstrative exhibits, and a total of $19,329 for witness fees paid to Mr. Roberts’ dental 

expert, Dr. Signe Belden. 

Analysis

1. Motion to Re-Tax Costs

Mr. Roberts objects to the Clerk’s decision to tax costs against him in the amount 

of $2,616.20. This Court has jurisdiction to review the Clerk’s action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(d); L.R. 54.1(h). While there is a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the 

prevailing party, courts have discretion to deny costs as long as they specify an 

appropriate reason. See Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., Inc., 342 F.3d 

1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit has historically recognized three bases for 

denying costs to the prevailing party: (1) a losing party's limited financial resources; (2) 

misconduct by the prevailing party; and (3) “the chilling effect of imposing ... high costs 

on future civil rights litigants.” Id. (quoting Ass'n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of 

California, 231 F.3d 572, 592 (9th Cir. 2000)). While there’s no allegation of misconduct 

by the prevailing party, at least the first and third bases for denying costs are implicated

here.

First, Mr. Roberts is clearly indigent. He has no funds in any of his accounts and 

thus would be unable to pay any costs assessed to him. Indeed, a significant part of his 

Case 3:15-cv-01871-LAB-BLM Document 147 Filed 06/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
- 3 -

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

argument at trial was that he was unable to afford even basic toiletries like toothpaste and 

that the prison-provided “tooth powder” proved inadequate in preventing cavities. Dr. 

Sabati nonetheless argues that because any costs would be incrementally deducted from 

Mr. Roberts’ prison trust account as a small percentage of the account balance, his ability 

to obtain basic necessities would not be affected. Since Mr. Roberts does not have any

money in his account, however, it’s unlikely that any portion of these costs would be 

repaid until he leaves prison, at which point the debt would simply serve as a hindrance 

to him reintegrating into society. His indigency affects him just as it would a plaintiff who 

is not incarcerated, and such plaintiffs are usually not held responsible for costs. See, 

e.g., Flores by & through Clark v. United States, 2017 WL 5176884, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2017) 

(refusing to award costs because it would be unjust to order indigent plaintiff to pay); see 

also Lowry v. City of San Diego, 2013 WL 12209819, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (refusing to 

award costs because plaintiff, though not completely destitute, would be unable to support 

herself if ordered to pay).

Awarding costs would also have a chilling effect on future civil rights litigants. Dr. 

Sabati argues that the unique facts here would likely distinguish the present case from 

future civil rights litigation and therefore have no far-reaching effect on inmate dental care 

or prison life. But factual distinctions exist in every case, whether civil rights-related or 

not. Were the Court to find Mr. Roberts liable for costs, it would chill the willingness of 

other inmates who believe they received inadequate dental care from pursuing those 

claims. The Court can’t countenance that by taxing Mr. Roberts with costs.

The Court finds that Mr. Roberts is indigent and that assessing costs would chill

future civil rights litigation. His Motion to Re-Tax Costs is GRANTED.

2. Motion for Reimbursement of Expenses

Mr. Roberts also moves for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in the 

prosecution of this action by his pro bono counsel, Haeggquist & Eck, LLP. His counsel

requests reimbursement for $22,271.81 of the $29,049.85 in expenses they incurred. 

Case 3:15-cv-01871-LAB-BLM Document 147 Filed 06/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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

This Court may reimburse out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred by courtappointed attorneys representing indigents in pro bono cases. L.R. 83.8(2)(a).

The Court finds that Mr. Roberts’ counsel should be reimbursed $2,737.86 for 

transcripts and $204.95 for charts and exhibits. These costs were both necessary and 

reasonable. The requested $19,329 for the services of Mr. Roberts’ retained dental 

expert, however, goes above and beyond what is necessary. In all, Mr. Roberts’ counsel 

seeks reimbursement for 30.4 hours of expert work before trial at an hourly rate of $475

and an additional $4,600 for the witness to appear at trial. The Court finds that these

figures represent an unreasonably high fee for services. Instead, the Court will apply the 

lodestar method—similar to the approach used by federal courts in assessing attorney’s 

fees—to determine the reasonable amount of expert fees. See Kelly v. Wengler, 822 

F.3d 1085, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (detailing the use of the lodestar method to calculate 

attorney’s fees). The Court accepts as reasonable the expert’s claimed 38.4 hours of 

work. This includes 30.4 hours before trial and 8 hours for her appearance at trial.1 The 

Court finds that an hourly rate of $250 is appropriate. After adding an additional $269 for 

clerical costs, the appropriate total compensation for the work of Mr. Roberts’ expert 

witness is $9,869.

Mr. Roberts’ Motion for Reimbursement of Expenses is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. Mr. Roberts’ counsel is entitled to reimbursement from the Court Pro 

Bono Fund in the amount of $12,811.21 ($9,869 for witness fees, $2,737.86 for 

transcripts, and $204.95 for charts and exhibits).

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

 

1 Mr. Roberts’ expert does not specify the number of hours spent at trial, but instead billed

a flat fee of $4,600 for her work. The Court finds that 8 hours is a reasonable estimate of 

her trial-related hours.

Case 3:15-cv-01871-LAB-BLM Document 147 Filed 06/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, Mr. Roberts’ Motion to Re-Tax Costs is GRANTED, Dkt 

143, and Mr. Roberts’ Motion for Reimbursement of Expenses is GRANTED IN PART

and DENIED IN PART. Dkt. 140. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01871-LAB-BLM Document 147 Filed 06/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5