Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02080/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02080-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MARJORIE C. PINO,

individually, and as a

representative of the estate

of decedent RONNIE PINO,

NO. CIV. S-05-2080 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER RE: COSTS

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO 

COUNTY, ALBERT NARJERA, LOU 

BLANAS, PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS, 

INC., and DOES 1 through 75, 

inclusive, 

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On January 26, 2007, the court entered final judgment

in this case in favor of defendants. Defendants County of

Sacramento and Sheriff Lou Blanas have submitted a cost bill

totaling $11,058.69; plaintiff has not objected. Rule 54(d)(1)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 54-292(f)

govern the taxation of costs to losing parties, which are

Case 2:05-cv-02080-WBS-DAD Document 84 Filed 04/03/07 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

generally subject to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1920.

The court exercises its discretion in determining

whether to allow certain costs. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court has

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters

Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same). The

losing party has the burden of overcoming the presumption in

favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. See Russian

River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136,

1144 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the presumption “may only be

overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part of the

prevailing party”); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523; see also L.R. 54-

292(d) (“If no objection is filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax

and enter costs.”).

After reviewing the bill, and in light of the fact that

the losing party has not objected, the court finds all costs to

be reasonable. Accordingly, defendants County of Sacramento and

Sheriff Lou Blanas’ bill for costs of $11,058.69 will be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 3, 2007

Case 2:05-cv-02080-WBS-DAD Document 84 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 2