Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01765/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01765-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Sacramento
Defendant
Jimmy Southern
Plaintiff
Drake Walker
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JIMMY SOUTHERN, individually and 

as successor-in-interest to Decedent 

JEREMY SOUTHERN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a municipal 

corporation; DRAKE WALKER, 

individually and in his capacity as a 

City of Sacramento Police Officer; and 

DOES 1–50, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC

ORDER

Plaintiff Jimmy Southern (“Plaintiff”) brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants City of Sacramento (the “City”) and police officer 

Drake Walker (“Walker”) (collectively, “Defendants”) based on the fatal shooting of 

Plaintiff’s brother, Jeremy Southern (“Decedent”). Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 15 

(“SAC”). The Court previously granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings brought 

by Defendants and entered judgment in their favor on Plaintiff’s second, third, and fifth 

claims for relief. ECF Nos. 33, 38. More recently, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims for excessive force, negligence, 

and battery after concluding that Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the instant claims. 

Case 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC Document 66 Filed 01/16/24 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

ECF No. 59. Presently before the Court is Defendants contested Bill of Costs, by which 

Defendants seek to recover $19,270.15 is litigation costs. ECF No. 63. 

The Court declines to award costs. See Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.,

1247-48 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Appropriate reasons for denying costs include: (1) the 

substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in 

the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited financial 

resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties.”); Save Our Valley v. 

Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding “that the district court abused 

its discretion in rejecting a losing civil rights plaintiff's motion to deny costs to the 

defendant without considering: (1) the plaintiff's limited financial resources and (2) the 

chilling effect on future civil rights litigants of imposing high costs”). Each of the factors 

weighs against taxing costs against this civil rights plaintiff, who has limited financial 

resources when compared to Defendants. Moreover, taxing costs would likely chill 

future litigation in such difficult and important cases. Accordingly, the Court concludes 

that awarding Defendants their costs in this case would be inappropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2024

Case 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC Document 66 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 2