Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00163/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00163-6/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----

LATEACHEEAH G. ANDERSON

SALVATTO, and RICHARD

SALVATTO, individually and as

guardians for JAMAL THROWER, a

minor,

NO. CIV. S-04-0163 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: COSTS

COUNTY OF SOLANO, CITY OF

VALLEJO, COUNTY OF SOLANO

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

LIEUTENANT LIDDICOET, OFFICER

K. MCCARTHY, VALLEJO POLICE

DEPARTMENT, WATCH COMMANDER K.

SCHROEDER, CORPORAL B. CLARK,

OFFICER WHITNEY,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On April 30, 2007, the court entered a judgment in

favor of the defendants pursuant to the court’s order of March

26, 2007. Defendants City of Vallejo, Vallejo Police Department,

and Officers Liddicoet, McCarthy, Schroeder, Clark, and Whitney

submitted a cost bill totaling $5,655.66 on May 1, 2007. 

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

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 80 Filed 08/22/07 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, which are generally 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, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987) (limiting taxable

costs to those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920).

The court exercises its discretion in determining

whether to allow certain costs. Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d

1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the district court has

discretion to determine what constitutes a taxable cost within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1920); Alflex Corp. v. Underwriters

Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177 (9th Cir. 1990) (same). The

losing party has the burden of overcoming the presumption in

favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party. See Russian

River Watershed Prot. Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136,

1144 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that the presumption “may only be

overcome by pointing to some impropriety on the part of the

prevailing party”); Amarel, 102 F.3d at 1523; see also L.R. 54-

292(d) (“If no objection is filed, the Clerk shall proceed to tax

and enter costs. If objections are filed, they should state

specific objections to claimed items with a statement of grounds

thereof.”). 

On May 8, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the

issuance of court costs. Plaintiffs have not stated any grounds

for their request to stay court costs aside from their

disagreement with the underlying judgment. This court has

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 80 Filed 08/22/07 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

discretion to stay costs until after disposition of appeal. See

Am. Infra-Red Radiant Co. v. Lambert Indus., Inc., 41 F.R.D. 161

(D. Minn. 1966). However, because there does not appear to be

any merit to plaintiffs’ appeal, the court declines to exercise

that discretion. Plaintiffs did not state specific objections to

any claimed item of costs. 

After reviewing the bill, and in light of the fact that

plaintiffs have not objected to any specific items, the court

finds all costs to be reasonable. Accordingly, costs of

$5,655.66 will be allowed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 21, 2007

Case 2:04-cv-00163-WBS-GGH Document 80 Filed 08/22/07 Page 3 of 3