Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01044-13/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,

v.

J. BEARD, Secretary of CDCR; D. 

PARAMO, Warden of RJDCF; et 

al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion for Taxation of Costs filed by Plaintiff 

Tony Roberts. (ECF No. 204). 

BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff Tony Roberts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated 

this action by filing a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants A. 

Buenrostro, R. Davis, C. Meza, A. Parker, R, Santiago, K. Seibel, and R. Solis for violation 

of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. (ECF No. 1).

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 206 Filed 10/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
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

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 

(IFP). (ECF No. 2). On May 26, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. 

(ECF No. 4). 

On September 16, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims 

except for the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro for sexual assault. 

(ECF No. 46).

On September 24, 2018, the Court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff as to 

his remaining Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Buenrostro, and as to his First 

Amendment claim for the allegedly false and retaliatory April 2, 2014 rules violation 

report. (ECF No. 136). The Court declined to grant summary judgment in favor of 

Defendants on the grounds of exhaustion. The Court remanded the case to the Magistrate 

Judge to hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the disputed material facts of whether the 

prison improperly failed to process Plaintiff’s alleged grievances on April 2, 2014; June 

23, 2014; and July 8, 2014, such that Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust would be excused. 

On November 16, 2018, the Magistrate Judge vacated the scheduled evidentiary 

hearing “[i]n light of the fact that Defendants have withdrawn their defense of exhaustion 

of administrative remedies.” ECF No. 170 at 1; see also ECF Nos. 169, 166 (noting 

withdrawal of exhaustion defense). 

On March 14, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment for Defendants as to 

Plaintiff’s state law claims and granted summary judgment for Defendants as to Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment claims against Defendants Solis, Santiago, and Seibel. (ECF No. 178). 

The Court declined to grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants as to Plaintiff’s 

First Amendment claims against Defendants Parker, Davis, Meza, and Buenrosto.

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 206 Filed 10/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
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

On May 22, 2019, Defendants1filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that 

Plaintiff made untrue statements in his motion to proceed IFP. (ECF No. 189). On August 

2, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 198). 

On August 2, 2019, the Clerk of the Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendants 

and against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 199). 

On August 13, 2019, Defendants filed a Bill of Costs in the amount of $884.70. 

(ECF No. 200). On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Objection to Defendants’ Bill of 

Costs. (ECF No. 202). On September 17, 2019, the Clerk of the Court taxed costs in 

amount of $559.70 against Plaintiff. (ECF No. 203).

On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Taxation of Costs. (ECF No. 

204). Defendants have not filed a response in opposition and Plaintiff has not filed a reply. 

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS

Plaintiff contends that his indigence should preclude the Court from imposing costs. 

Id. at 11. Plaintiff asserts that he “is in prison and has no money.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff 

contends that the taxation of costs in a prisoner civil rights cases would create an 

impermissible chilling effect on future civil rights suits. Id. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has broad 

discretion to vacate or amend a Clerk’s decision to tax costs. See Dawson v. City of Seattle, 

435 F.3d 1054, 1070 (9th Cir. 2006). In exercising this discretion, the Court is mindful 

that a losing party bears the burden of establishing a reason to avoid taxation of costs. See 

Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2003).

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

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

 

1 Defendants Buenrostro, Davis, Meza, Parker, Santiago, Seibel, and Solis move to dismiss. (ECF No. 189 

at 1). The remaining Defendants, Beard, Paramo, Sanchez, Arguilez, and Ciborowski, were never properly 

served. (ECF No. 31). 

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 206 Filed 10/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
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

Cir. 2000). 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).

DISCUSSION

Courts have held that once costs are awarded, “a prisoner cannot avoid responsibility 

based on indigence.” Janoe v. Stone, No. 06-CV-1511-JM, 2012 WL 70424, at *2 (S.D. 

Cal. Jan. 9, 2012). “[I]ndigence, standing alone, is not a justification to evade the taxation 

of costs.” Williams v. Gore, No. 15-CV-0654-AJB-PCL, 2017 WL 4960220, at *3 (S.D. 

Cal. Nov. 1, 2017). The concern that Plaintiff will be unable to pay costs is alleviated by 

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 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 postage unless costs were retaxed). The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s destitution does not preclude responsibility for 

paying costs. 

Costs of $559.70 do not impose a potential chilling effect on future civil rights 

litigants. See Williams, 2017 WL 4960220, at *3 (concluding that $3,119.58 in costs “is 

not so excessive as to serve as an inappropriate threat to discourage serious civil rights 

claims”); Kidd v. Pacific Bell Telephone Co., No. 11cv1512 L(MDD), 2013 WL 2146924, 

at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2013) (“The amount of costs [of $5,147.23] sought is reasonable 

and not exorbitant. Therefore, the suggestion that an award of costs would chill further 

civil rights litigation is not persuasive in this instance.”); Save Our Valley, 335 F.3d at 946

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 206 Filed 10/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
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

(stating that costs of $5,310.55 is a “relatively small sum”), compare with Ass’n of

Mexican-Am. Educators v. Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 593 (9th Cir. 2000) (affirming the district 

court’s denial of $216,443.67 in costs to a prevailing defendant because the 

“extraordinarily high” costs “might have the regrettable effect of discouraging potential 

[civil rights] plaintiffs”). The Court concludes that the amount of costs in this case is not 

excessive as to discourage serious civil rights claims.

In granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court stated that 

The record supports a finding that that Plaintiff concealed the $3,000 he 

received in settlement money in October of 2014 in order to gain access to the 

court without prepayment of filing fees. The record supports a finding that 

Plaintiff knowingly provided inaccurate information regarding sources of 

money during the twelve months preceding the IFP motion.

(ECF No. 198 at 8). The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s case as required by § 1915(e)(2) after 

concluding that 

The record does not support a finding that Plaintiff’s omission was a ‘mere[] 

inaccuracy,’ . . . or a ‘misstatement[], or minor misrepresentation[] made in 

good faith,’ . . .

Id. The imposition of costs in this case would not chill future civil rights litigants given 

Plaintiff’s inaccurate information in bringing forth his claim. “[F]uture plaintiffs willing 

to conduct themselves with candor and good faith need not be deterred by this decision 

because it is limited to this specific instance of Plaintiff’s untrustworthy conduct in 

litigating his case.” Williams, 2017 WL 4960220, at *4; see Baltimore v. Haggins, No. 

1:10-CV-00931-LJO, 2014 WL 804463, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2014) (denying taxation 

of costs on defendant due to the lack of evidence of misconduct or bad faith by the 

defendant); Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 593 (holding denial of 

“overwhelming costs” may be appropriate when “[t]he issues in the case are close and 

complex” and the plaintiff’s position was “not without merit”).

The Court concludes that Plaintiff ultimately fails to rebut the presumption in favor 

of awarding costs to Defendants.

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 206 Filed 10/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Taxation of Costs filed by Plaintiff 

(ECF No. 204) is DENIED.

Dated: October 30, 2019

Case 3:15-cv-01044-WQH-RBM Document 206 Filed 10/30/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6