Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01553/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-01553-2/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----

ANTHONY J. VALADEZ,

NO. CIV. S-03-1553 WBS PAN-PS

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER RE: COSTS FOR DEFENDANTS

COUNTY OF SIERRA, CALIFORNIA

SIERRA COUNTY JAIL, SIERRA 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

LELAND ADAMS, AND CORPORAL LOU

FOXWORTHY

COUNTY OF SIERRA, CALIFORNIA

SIERRA COUNTY JAIL, SIERRA

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

WESTERN SIERRA MEDICAL CLINIC,

JUDGE WILLIAM PANGMAN, SHERIFF

LELAND ADAMS, CORPORAL LOU

FOXWORTHY, LYNN JAKOBS, FRANK

J. LANG, and DOES 1-20,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 2, 2005, the court entered final judgment in

favor of defendants in this case. Defendants County of Sierra,

California Sierra County Jail, Sierra County Sheriff’s

Department, Leland Adams, and Corporal Lou Foxworthy have

submitted a cost bill totaling $5,487.35. Plaintiff does not

object.

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Case 2:03-cv-01553-WBS-PAN Document 85 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 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

2

and Local Rule 54-292(f) govern the taxation of costs to losing

parties, subject to limits set under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See 28

U.S.C. § 1920 (enumerating taxable costs); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(d)(1)(“costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of

course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs

. . . .”); L.R. 54-292(f); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons,

482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987)(limiting taxable costs to those

enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920). The district court has

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters’ Lab.,

Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990). The losing party has

the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of awarding

costs to the prevailing party. See Russian River Watershed

Protection Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th

Cir. 1998); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523.

The bill of costs refers to photocopy charges of $54.30

on April 13, 2005, but the accompanying invoice shows a total of

only $49.50 under that section, leaving $4.80 unaccounted for. 

Photocopy charges on the other dates correctly match the totals

shown on the invoice. More importantly, however, these charges

are calculated at $0.30 per page. The court finds a photocopying

charge of $0.30 per page to be unreasonable, and will award the

more reasonable cost of $0.10 per page. Making both of these

changes results in a photocopying cost of $140.40 instead of the

requested $426.00, and a total cost of $5,201.75 instead of the

requested $5,487.35.

The court finds all other costs to be reasonable. 

Case 2:03-cv-01553-WBS-PAN Document 85 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, the cost of $5,201.75 will be allowed.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 12, 2005

Case 2:03-cv-01553-WBS-PAN Document 85 Filed 07/13/05 Page 3 of 3