Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01833/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01833-15/pdf.json

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

---

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

04cv1833

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO VERA JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SAMBRANO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv1833-L(PCL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

EX PARTE APPLICATION

On February 18, 2010 Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for Review of Bill of Costs

by Court. A hearing on Defendants’ Bill of Costs is currently set before the Clerk of Court for

February 23, 2010. For the reasons which follow, Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application is DENIED.

Plaintiff requests a court review of Defendants’ Bill of Costs. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(d)(1) provides for taxing of costs by the clerk, and gives the party dissatisfied with

the clerk’s action the opportunity to file a motion for review by court. In this case, a hearing

before the clerk is scheduled for February 23, 2010; therefore, no clerk action has yet issued. 

Although Plaintiff may be correct in his argument that Defendants should not recover costs, he

has not cited any legal authority for the proposition that Defendants’ Bill of Costs must forego

clerk’s action and be considered by the court in the first instance. While The Association of

Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, relied upon by Plaintiff, holds that the

district court has discretion not to award costs, it does not address the procedural issue raised

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 411 Filed 02/22/10 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 04cv1833

here – whether or under what circumstances the clerk’s action can be avoided altogether. 231

F.3d 572, 579, 591-93 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Accordingly, the Ex Parte Application is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2010

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 411 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 2