Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_02-cv-00379/USCOURTS-ared-5_02-cv-00379-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

PAMELA ALLEN PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 5:02CV00379GH

TOBACCO SUPERSTORE, INC., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s bill of costs. Plaintiff requests that costs in the

amount of $1,079.83 for the court reporter’s transcript in connection with the appeal be taxed as

costs in this case. Defendants object stating that as the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed

in part, and reversed in part, plaintiff is not entitled to costs. 

Rule 39(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that where the judgment

is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified or vacated, costs are taxed only as the court orders.

There are very few cases interpreting this provision, especially with regard to a transcript. Most

cases have dealt with premiums paid for a supersedeas bond. See F. R. A.P. 39(e)(3). In Golden

Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters Non-Marine Ass’n, 117 F. 3d 1328, 1340

(11th Cir. 1997), the Eleventh Circuit found that Rule 39(a) 

leaves the imposition of costs to the discretion of the appellate court where the

lower court judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part or vacated. In exercising

this discretion, a court must provide a specific directive. The phrase “only as

ordered by the court” does not provide the parties with a unfettered right to all costs

incurred on appeal. Rather, in cases where this court's determination does not

produce closure, we must determine the relief to which the parties are entitled.

Where this court's order fails to explicitly grant a class of costs, we must interpret

that silence as a rejection of those costs.

In this case, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Court finding that defendant

had discriminated and retaliated against plaintiff, but modified the amount of back pay and vacated

the punitive damages award. The judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs was affirmed.

The Eighth Circuit did not address the issue of costs on appeal. In light of the Eighth

Case 5:02-cv-00379-GH Document 210 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Circuit’s silence, the Court finds that plaintiff is not entitled to costs on appeal.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s bill of costs is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2007.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:02-cv-00379-GH Document 210 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 2