Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01984/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01984-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

Billy Taylor, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Horizon Distributors, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1984-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Horizon Distributors asks the Court to require that Plaintiff post a bond for

costs on appeal. Dkt. #134. Plaintiff Taylor has filed no response. The Court will deny

Horizon’s motion. Dkt. #134.

Taylor filed a civil rights complaint. Dkt. #1. The Court granted his motion for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. ##3, 4. The Court ultimately granted summary judgment

in favor of Horizon. Dkt. #120. On August 12, 2009, Taylor filed a notice of appeal.

Dkt. #127. Horizon now asks the Court to require that Taylor file a $10,000 bond to ensure

payment of Horizon’s costs on appeal, including attorneys’ fees. Horizon notes that Taylor

has failed to pay the current $7,486.30 judgment against him. Dkt. #134 at 3; see Fed. R.

App. P. 7.

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7, a “district court may require an

appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary to ensure

payment of costs on appeal.” The courts are split on whether the bond may include

attorneys’ fees. See Pedraza v. United Guar. Corp., 313 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2002)

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 139 Filed 01/22/10 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 -

(allowing attorneys’ fees); Adsani v. Miller, 139 F.3d 67, 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (allowing

attorneys’ fees); Sckolnick v. Harlow, 820 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1987) (allowing attorneys’ fees);

In re Am. President Lines, Inc., 779 F.2d 714 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (not allowing attorneys’

fees);United States v. United Funding and Investors, Inc., 800 F. Supp. 879 (E.D. Cal. 1992)

(not allowing attorneys’ fees).

The Court concludes that it need not address this split of authority. Taylor was

granted in forma pauperis status because he demonstrated that he could not afford the modest

filing fee in this case. Requiring him to post a bond of $10,000 would effectively foreclose

his right to appeal. The Court will not exercise its discretion to require that Taylor post a

bond he cannot afford.

IT IS ORDERED that Horizon’s motion for bond for costs on appeal (Dkt. #134) is

denied.

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-01984-DGC Document 139 Filed 01/22/10 Page 2 of 2