Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00494/USCOURTS-azd-2_02-cv-00494-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

VERNON HARRIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF

ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY

OF MARICOPA; et al., 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 02-0494-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Vernon Harris’s Motion Asking Court to Review

Taxation of Costs and Motion Asking Court to Order Defendants to Pay for of Offset Costs of

Certain Deposition Transcripts Pursuant to the Court’s Order of September 22, 2005. (Dkt.

339.) The Court will deny both motions without prejudice to refiling at the proper time and

with the proper authority.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1), Plaintiff files a motion requesting the Court to review

the action of the Clerk of Court in taxing costs. (Dkt. 339 at 1.) As Plaintiff notes, however,

the Clerk has not yet taxed costs. (Id.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is denied as premature.

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) (action of clerk may be reviewed by court on motion “served within

5 days” after costs are taxed by clerk). If dissatisfied with the action of the Clerk, Plaintiff may

move for review of that action at the proper time. Id.

Plaintiff also seeks an order requiring Defendants to pay for the costs of certain

deposition transcripts “pursuant to the Court’s Order of September 22, 2005 or to offset those

Case 2:02-cv-00494-SMM Document 340 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 2
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 -

costs against any costs assessed against plaintiff.” (Dkt. 339 at 1-2.) The Court has carefully

reviewed the docket entries, and finds no such Order by the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

request is denied without prejudice to Plaintiff submitting proper authority in support thereof.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING

Plaintiff’s Motion Asking Court to Review Taxation of Costs and Motion Asking Court to

Order Defendants to Pay for of Offset Costs of Certain Deposition Transcripts Pursuant to the

Court’s Order of September 22, 2005. (Dkt. 339.) 

DATED this 26th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-00494-SMM Document 340 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2