Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06700/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06700-40/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY MEEKS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN PARSONS, M.D.,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:03-cv-6700 OWW 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S BILL

OF COSTS

Plaintiff, Gary Meeks, objects to Defendant John Parsons,

M.D.’s Bill of Costs following a jury trial, verdict and judgment

for Defendant and against Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff filed this action in forma pauperis in November

26, 2003. On December 22, 2003, Plaintiff’s request to proceed

in forma pauperis was granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Mr.

Meeks’ status as indigent has not been contested at any time

prior nor with respect to this motion. Plaintiff was represented

by Kirkland & Ellis LLP by Nicholas A. Kacprowski, Esq. and

Joshua D. Herwitt, Esq. Defendant was represented by Deputy

Attorney General John M. Feser Jr., Esq. 

This case arose out of the Eighth Amendment claim by

Plaintiff that Dr. Parsons, his primary care doctor at Centinela

1

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 254 Filed 07/21/10 Page 1 of 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

State Prison, was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious

medical needs in failing to treat Plaintiff’s fractured jaw, 

while incarcerated at Centinella State Prison, which resulted in

months of pain and suffering and the loss of Plaintiff’s upper

teeth. 

In prior rulings, the Ninth Circuit reversed a summary

judgment which had been granted in favor of Dr. Parsons. A

motion for judgment as a matter of law brought by the Defendant

was denied during the jury trial upon the finding that the

evidence raised issues of fact whether Defendant was deliberately

indifferent to the serious medical needs of Plaintiff. The jury,

in its verdict, found that Plaintiff had a serious medical need

and that Dr. Parsons knew of that serious medical need. The jury

did not find that Dr. Parsons was deliberately indifferent to

Plaintiff’s known serious medical need. 

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff asserts that he cannot pay the costs sought to be

recovered in the amount of $7448.04 by virtue of his indigency. 

Further, that the Court has discretion to deny recovery of costs,

even if not a prevailing party, to encourage civil rights claims

and the public interest in maintaining effective prison medical

care. 

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and Eastern

District of California Local Rule 54-292(f) govern the taxation

of costs to losing parties, subject to the requirements of 28

2

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 254 Filed 07/21/10 Page 2 of 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

U.S.C. § 1920 (defining taxable costs). Rule 54(d)(1) provides:

“[U]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order

provides otherwise, costs - other than attorney’s fees - should

be allowed to the prevailing party.” “By its terms the rule

creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a prevailing

party, but vest in the District Court discretion to refuse to

award costs.” Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. California, 231

F.3d 572, 791 (9th Cir. 2000). If a District Court declines to

award costs to a prevailing party, the Court must explain “why,

in the circumstances, it would be inappropriate or inequitable to

award costs.” Id. at 593. 

Whether to award costs against a Plaintiff in a civil rights

case is determined by, and the Court must consider, the financial

resources of the Plaintiff, and the amount of costs sought by the

Defendant. Stanley v. Univ. of S.Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th

Cir. 1999). The Plaintiff is without financial resources. The

law provides that given a Plaintiff’s financial resources and the

amount of the potential award here, approximately $7,450.00, the

Court should evaluate whether awarding costs may chill similar

civil rights litigation in the future. Stanley at 1080. 

(“Without civil rights litigants who are willing to test the

boundaries of our laws, we would not have made much of the

progress that has occurred in this Nation since Brown v. Board of

Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).”) The Ninth Circuit also

recognizes that 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.” Ass’n. of MexicanAm. Educators, 231 F.3d at 593. Mr. Meeks is without resources

3

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 254 Filed 07/21/10 Page 3 of 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

or the ability to pay the cost bill. He asserts similar claims

by others will be discouraged. He argues the potential

consequence is to effectively immunize prison officials from

consequences of failing to treat an inmate’s known serious

medical needs. He further argues protecting the civil rights of

prisoners is a matter of substantial importance, regardless of an

individual’s wealth or poverty. 

Here, evidence shows substantial delays in rendering medical

treatment to Mr. Meeks who suffered substantial pain during that

time. Failed communications and other circumstances concerning

some delay in follow-up by Dr. Parsons gave sufficient

credibility to the claim to prevent disposition as a matter of

law. Plaintiff has been represented pro bono by highly qualified

and experienced lawyers, who have represented Plaintiff

throughout the case on a pro bono basis. Indigency is factor the

Court is to consider. Here, there is no contrary evidence in the

record to show that Mr. Meeks does not continue to be indigent or

that he has any means to pay a cost award of $7,450.00. 

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the totality of the circumstances, an award of the

costs sought against Plaintiff would be inequitable, because he

is without resources and an award has the potential to chill

meritorious civil rights actions, to remedy denial of appropriate

medical treatment for prisoners with known serious medical needs. 

Dr. Parsons was represented by the Attorney General of the State

of California and there is no evidence that he has any out-ofpocket expense in the defense of this lawsuit or that he has

4

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 254 Filed 07/21/10 Page 4 of 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

personally incurred the costs here sought to be recovered. For

all these reasons, the objection to the Bill of Costs is

SUSTAINED and Defendant’s motion to recover costs is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 21, 2010 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case 1:03-cv-06700-OWW -GSA Document 254 Filed 07/21/10 Page 5 of 5