UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GEORGE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-1764

Judge Martha M. Pacold

ORDER

On August 21, 2023, after the court entered judgment against the plaintiff 

and in favor of defendants on all claims following a jury trial, [226], [228],

defendants City of Chicago, and Officers George Moussa and Joseph Lopez

submitted a bill of costs [232]. For the following reasons, the defendants’ bill of 

costs is denied.

STATEMENT

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally provides that “costs—other 

than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” See Richardson v. 

Chicago Transit Auth., 926 F.3d 881, 893 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(d)(1)). This presumption that the court will award costs places the burden on the 

opposing party to demonstrate good reasons why the court should not make the 

award. Lange v. City of Oconto, 28 F.4th 825, 845 (7th Cir. 2022). One narrow 

exception to the prevailing party’s entitlement to costs is the “losing party’s 

inability to pay.” Id. at 845–46 (quoting Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 

F.3d 926, 945 (7th Cir. 1997)).

I. Costs Incurred

Defendants seek a total award of $798.45 for certain costs incurred in this 

action. [232] at 1.1 These costs include $578.45 in costs for printed or electronically 

recorded deposition and trial transcripts, and $265.00 for witness fees, including 

deposition attendance fees. Id. at 2; [232-1]; [232-2] at 2. Plaintiff does not 

meaningfully contend that such costs may not properly be sought under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1920. See generally [238]. Plaintiff instead contends that the costs should not be 

1 Bracketed numbers refer to docket entries and are followed by page and / or paragraph 

number citations. Page numbers refer to the CM/ECF page number. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 244 Filed: 03/31/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2200
2

awarded because defendants have not attached receipts or bills. Id. The court is 

not persuaded by this argument—defendants have properly submitted the bill of 

costs form provided by the court, which includes an itemization of defendants’ costs 

and is signed under penalty of perjury by defendants’ counsel. See [232-1]. Further, 

defendants’ requested costs are entirely reasonable given the demands of the case.

II. Indigence

Plaintiff also argues that the court should deny the bill of costs because of his

inability to pay or indigency. [238] at 1–3, 6–7. It is “within the discretion of the 

district court to consider a plaintiff’s indigency in denying costs under Rule 54(d).” 

Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631, 634 (7th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). “To 

deny costs based on indigency, the court must first ‘make a threshold factual finding 

that the losing party is “incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at this time or 

in the future.”’” Richardson, 926 F.3d at 893 (quoting Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635). The 

losing party bears the burden of providing the court with “sufficient documentation 

to support such a finding.” Id. (quoting Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635). Specifically, 

“[t]his documentation should include evidence in the form of an affidavit or other 

documentary evidence of both income and assets, as well as a schedule of expenses.” 

Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635. Requiring the “non-prevailing party to provide information 

about both income/assets and expenses . . . ensure[s] that district courts have clear 

proof of the non-prevailing party’s dire financial circumstances.” Id. The court will 

then consider “the amount of costs, the good faith of the losing party, and the 

closeness and difficulty of the issues raised by a case when using its discretion to 

deny costs.” Id. Importantly, “[n]o one factor is determinative.” Id. at 635–36.

Plaintiff has met his burden to demonstrate indigency under this standard. 

Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ bill of costs includes a signed declaration from 

plaintiff attesting that he is disabled, and that his only source of income is $934.00 

he receives each month in Social Security Disability payments, [238-1] at 2–3, 

which is below the poverty guidelines. Plaintiff indicates that he has retinitis 

pigmentosa, which has prevented him from working since June 2022 and which will 

likely prevent him from working in the future, as it is a genetic disease with no 

cure. Id. Plaintiff’s declaration also includes a schedule of his monthly expenses, 

showing that essentially all of his monthly income is consumed by spending on basic 

necessities. Id. And plaintiff indicates that he has no assets beyond home 

furnishings. Id. Plaintiff’s declaration also indicates that his monthly income 

sometimes does not cover all of his expenses, requiring him to rely on the charity of 

family and friends. Id. The court concludes that plaintiff is indigent.

The court must therefore consider “the amount of costs, the good faith of the 

losing party, and the closeness and difficulty of the issues raised by a case when 

using its discretion to deny costs.” Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635. Defendants’ requested 

costs, totaling $798.45, are reasonable and not disproportionate in relation to the 

demands imposed by this case. But “[n]o one factor is determinative.” Id. at 635–

Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 244 Filed: 03/31/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2201
3

36. The court does not find the closeness and difficulty of the issues to weigh 

strongly in either direction in this analysis—though the court notes that the case 

had a somewhat complicated procedural history. Significantly, however, the court 

is not persuaded that plaintiff pursued this suit in anything other than good faith, 

and the court in its discretion is not inclined to impose costs that amount to almost 

an entire month’s income for the disabled plaintiff, who already has to sometimes 

rely on the charity of family and friends to meet his needs. The court will therefore 

deny the bill of costs on the basis of the plaintiff’s indigence.

* * *

Defendants’ bill of costs [232] is denied.

Dated: March 31, 2024 /s/ Martha M. Pacold

Case: 1:12-cv-01764 Document #: 244 Filed: 03/31/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2202