Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01045/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-01045-1/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

BLAKE DEWS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:05cv1045-MHT

) (WO) 

TROY UNIVERSITY, )

etc., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the court on defendant Troy

University’s motion to award costs in the amount of

$ 1,693.75. The motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Blake Dews, a “photo studio” student at

Troy, brought this lawsuit against the university and

several of its administrative officials and faculty,

charging that they violated federal and state laws when

they censored and refused to display his art project,

Case 2:05-cv-01045-MHT-SRW Document 59 Filed 07/09/07 Page 1 of 8
2

which he describes in his complaint as “a collage ... of

16 black-and-white photographs of male and female

models--some of which are depicted in the nude, yet none

of which are engaged in sexual activity or posed with a

member of the opposite sex while nude.” Compl. ¶ 28

(doc. no. 1). The parties engaged in discovery, and the

defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On the

day Dews’s response to the summary-judgment motion was

due, he filed a motion to dismiss, with prejudice, his

entire complaint. The record does not reflect that the

parties reached a settlement agreement. This court

granted Dews’s motion and dismissed the case. Troy

timely filed a bill of costs and a motion to award costs,

which Dews opposes.

II. DISCUSSION

The taxation of costs that normally accompanies final

judgment is governed by Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure: “Except when express provision

Case 2:05-cv-01045-MHT-SRW Document 59 Filed 07/09/07 Page 2 of 8
3

therefor is made either in a statute of the United States

or in these rules, costs other than attorneys’ fees shall

be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless

the court otherwise directs.”

A. Prevailing Party

The first question is whether Troy is the prevailing

party in this litigation. When a plaintiff voluntarily

dismisses an action with prejudice, the defendant is

considered the prevailing party. Mathews v. Crosby, 480

F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Mother &

Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2003);

Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 130 (5th Cir. 1985).

Dews cites Easiley v. Norris, 107 F.Supp.2d 1332

(N.D. Okla. 2000) (Kern, C.J., adopting report &

recommendation of Joyner, M.J.), for the proposition that

a defendant is not a prevailing party when the plaintiff

has voluntarily dismissed the complaint. Easiley,

however, addresses the definition of ‘prevailing party’

Case 2:05-cv-01045-MHT-SRW Document 59 Filed 07/09/07 Page 3 of 8
4

in the context of attorney’s fees, not costs. Although

Dews argues that Easiley’s definition of ‘prevailing

party’ should be applied to costs as well as fees, in

fact the term is not synonymous in both contexts. See 10

James Wm. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 54.101[3], at

54-160 to -161 (3d ed. 2007) (discussing the different

meaning of ‘prevailing party’ in the context of costs

versus fees, particularly for voluntary dismissal of

civil-rights cases). In any event, Easiley is not

binding on this court, whereas Mathews v. Crosby is.

Therefore, Troy is the prevailing party in this case.

B. Court’s Discretion to Deny or Reduce Costs

The next question is whether the court should

exercise its discretion not to tax costs against Dews, or

to reduce the costs taxable against him, even though Troy

is the prevailing party. Rule 54(d) “establishes a

presumption that costs are to be awarded to a prevailing

party, but vests the district court with discretion to

Case 2:05-cv-01045-MHT-SRW Document 59 Filed 07/09/07 Page 4 of 8
5

decide otherwise.” Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012,

1038 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). “The presumption that

the prevailing party is entitled to costs must be

overcome by some showing that an award would be

inequitable under the circumstances. The losing party

bears the burden of making this showing.” 10 Moore,

supra, § 54.101[1][b] at 54-152. Courts may employ a

case-by-case approach in considering objections to costs

awards under Rule 54(d)(1). 10 Charles Alan Wright,

Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice &

Procedure § 2668, at 231 (3d ed. 1998).

In this case, Dews argues that he is indigent and

unable to pay costs. Dews has filed an affidavit in

which he states that he graduated from Troy in 2005 with

approximately $ 20,000 in student-loan debt, that he is

employed full-time at a frame factory earning $ 9 per

hour, that he has expenses of approximately $ 1,395 per

month, and that he must rely on his parents for his car

payments and car insurance. According to Dews, because

Case 2:05-cv-01045-MHT-SRW Document 59 Filed 07/09/07 Page 5 of 8
6

of his inability to pay, the court should reduce costs by

90 %, from $ 1,693.75 to $ 169.38.

In this circuit, “a non-prevailing party’s financial

status is a factor that a district court may, but need

not, consider in its award of costs pursuant to Rule

54(d).” Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1039. Before that factor

can be considered, there must be “clear proof of the

non-prevailing party’s dire financial circumstances.”

Id. Additionally, “Even in those rare circumstances

where the non-prevailing party’s financial circumstances

are considered in determining the amount of costs to be

awarded, a court may not decline to award any costs at

all.” Id.

In Blevins v. Heilig-Meyers Corp., 184 F.R.D. 663

(M.D. Ala. 1999) (Thompson, J.), this court exercised its

discretion to reduce costs against an indigent plaintiff:

“The record establishes that

[plaintiff], her husband, and her

six-year-old son would suffer

substantial financial hardship should

she be required to pay her full share of

the defendants’ litigation costs.

Case 2:05-cv-01045-MHT-SRW Document 59 Filed 07/09/07 Page 6 of 8
7

[Plaintiff] has been unemployed since

December 16, 1996, when her family was

involved in a car accident in which she

was seriously injured. She has

$ 100,000 in outstanding hospital bills

from that accident. As a result of the

accident, her husband was unemployed for

eleven months with no income. Her

husband now brings home $ 735 every two

weeks. [Their] expenses, which include

a house payment of $ 632.00 per month,

are more than their monthly income.”

Blevins, 184 F.R.D. at 669 (footnotes omitted). In light

of these facts, the court reduced the costs taxed against

that plaintiff by 90 %. Id.

Dews’s situation bears a certain resemblance to that

of the plaintiff in Blevins described above: Dews has

significant debt and his expenses exceed his income.

However, Dews is a recent college graduate with steady

employment and no dependents. His debt, which is for

student loans, is not crippling; he makes payments in

accordance with a typical monthly plan. It is important

to note that in Blevins, this court declined to reduce

costs against another plaintiff, whom the court described

as being “of modest means, but not poor.” Id. While the

Case 2:05-cv-01045-MHT-SRW Document 59 Filed 07/09/07 Page 7 of 8
court is sympathetic to the important constitutional

rights Dews believed had been violated and while, more

aptly, the court appreciates his financial circumstances,

the court would not go so far as to describe those

circumstances as “dire.” Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1039.

Additionally, although a bill of costs in the amount of

$ 1,693.75 is steep, it is not insurmountable. In sum,

the court concludes that Dews has not met his burden of

demonstrating the inequity of awarding Troy costs under

the circumstances.

* * *

Accordingly, it is the ORDERED as follows:

(1) Defendant Troy University’s motion to award costs

(doc. no. 52) is granted.

(2) Defendant Troy University shall have and recover

from plaintiff Blake Dews costs in the amount of

$ 1,693.75.

DONE, this the 9th day of July, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01045-MHT-SRW Document 59 Filed 07/09/07 Page 8 of 8