T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der a n d ju d g m e n t m a yb e c ite d u n d e r t h e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O c t ob e r17,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT LI LLI AN F. SAN DLE,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v . A N T H O N Y J . P R I N C I P I , S e c r e t a ry, Ve t e r a n s Affa i r s ; E . T HOR S L AND, J R. , Di r e c t o rVA M e d i c a l Ce n t e r ; ED S A N C H E Z , C hief, H um an R esources, D en v er V A M ed ical C en ter; R A Y M O N D ( R A Y ) D E L U N A , H um an R es our ces , D enverV A M edi cal Ce n t e r ; UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 04- 1482 (D . C . N o . 0 2 -B B -13 5 8 (P A C ))

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e O’ BRI EN , HOLL OW AY , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of- 2-

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. Pl ai nt i ff- appel l antL i l l i an F. Sandl e appe al s fr om or der s of the di s tr i ct cour tgr ant i ng defe ndant s ’ m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . She al s o cl ai m s t he cour terr ed i n deny i ng herm ot i ons t o appoi ntcouns el and i n aff i r m i ng the cl erk’ s aw ar d t axi ng cos t s agai ns theri n the amountof $673. 75. Forthe r eas ons b e lo w , w e fin d n o e rr o r a n d a ffir m . Pl ai nt i ff i s a nur s e form er l yempl oy ed bythe D epart m entof V et er ans Affa i r s ( VA) a tt h e VA Me d i c a l Ce n t e ri n De n v e r , Co l o r a d o . I n 1 9 9 1 , th e VA t erm i nat ed herempl oym entbeca us e s he s uffe r ed an i nj uryand coul d no l onger p e rfo rm h e r j o b d u tie s . P rio r to a n d fo llo w in g h e r te rm in a tio n , p lain tiff h a d filed six se p a ra te co m p lai n ts of

d iscri m ination w ith the V A . A ll o f h er c o m p lai n ts w ere eventual l yr es ol ved vi a a w r i t t en s et t l ementagr eementw i th the V A , w hi ch w as exec ut ed i n 1997. I n addi t i on t o pay i ng pl ai nt i ff money , the s et t l ementagr eementobl i gat ed th e V A to g iv e h e r “ [ p ]rio rityp lac e m e n t w ith in six m o n th s f ro m th e d a te o f

th is agr eement( fr om t he l i s tof pos i t i ons pr ovi ded by[pl ai nt i ff] ) ” thatw as t o be fil led b ythe V A at i ts D en v er fac il ity , an d fo r w h ich s h e w as q u ali fied . R . I, d o c . 9 7 , E x . A -1 a t 1 .- 3-

Pl ai nt i ff l at ercont ended thatthe V A fai l ed t o gi ve herpr i or i typl ace m ent fors ever al pos i t i ons and as a r es ul tof thi s al l eged br eac h, s he fi l ed a ne w admi ni s t r at i ve compl ai nti n 1998. H ernew compl ai ntw as eventual l ydi s m i s s ed b yth e V A ’s O ffic e o f R e s o lu tio n . O n appea l fr om t he O ffi ce of R es ol ut i on’ s di s m i s s al , the Equal E m pl oym entO ppor tuni t yC om m i s s i on ( E E O C ) r ever s ed the age ncy ’ s deci s i on, and hel d t he s et t l ementagr eementi nval i d. A s a cons equenc e of i t s fi ndi ng of in v a lid ity , the E E O C o rd e re d th e V A to re in sta te a ll o f p lain tiff ’s c o m p lain ts t hathad bee n pendi ng att he t i m e the agr eementw as exec ut ed. T hus , the part i es w e re re tu rn e d to th e irp re -s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t s ta tu s . F o llo w in g re in sta tem e n t an d re c o n sid e ra tio n o f p lain tiff ’s p re -se ttl e m e n t compl ai nt s , t he V A deni ed hercl ai m s . Fol l ow i ng an uns ucce s s ful appea l , the E E O C i s s ued i t s deci s i on on M ar ch 27, 2002, deny i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s r eques tfor r econs i der at i on. A m ong ot herthi ngs , the EE O C ’ s deci s i on s t at ed: “Y ou have the righ t t o fil e a civil acti o n in an ap p rop ri ate U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt w i thi n n i n ety (90 ) cal en d ar d ay s f ro m th e d a te th a t yo u re c e iv e th is d e c is io n .” R . I, d o c . 4 4 , E x . A a t 1 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . O n J ul y3, 2002, pl ai nt i ff f i l ed herl aw s ui t , w hi ch cont ai ned s i x cl ai m s for r el i ef: cl ai m s one thr ough fourw er e bas ed upon an a l l eged br eac h of the1 T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted p lain tiff ’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris

p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (a ).

- 4- se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t; th e fif th c laim w a s fo r m isre p re se n tatio n ; an d th e six th c laim a ss e rte d v io latio n s o f T itl e V II, th e A D E A , a n d th e R e h a b ili tatio n A c t. 1 Sum m aryJ udgm ent P la in tiff a d m itte d th a t s h e re c e iv e d th e E E O C ’s d e c is io n o n A p ri l 3 , 2 0 0 2 . H ow ever , s he di d notfi l e herl aw s ui tunt i l J ul y3, 2002, w hi ch i s 91 cal endar day s aft err ece i ptof the dec i s i on. N onethel es s , s he cl ai m s err oras t o the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s or derhol di ng t hathers i xth cl ai m forr el i ef w as t i m e barr ed. T hi s cour tr evi ew s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent d e n o v o , v iew in g th e e v id e n c e a n d d ra w in g re a so n a b le in fe re n c e s th e re f ro m in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . G os s et tv. O kla. ex r el . B d. of R eg e n ts fo r L a n gsto n Un iv ., 2 4 5 F .3 d 1 1 7 2 , 1 1 7 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A f ter re v iew in g th e re c o rd , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton pl ai nt i ff’ s s i xth cl ai m forr el i ef be caus e s he fai l ed t o fi l e hercompl ai ntw i t hi n 90 day s fol l ow i ng r ece i ptof the EE O C ’ s fi nal deci s i on on A pr i l 3, 2002. A s s uch, w e affi r m t he or derfors um m aryj udgm ent fort he r eas ons s etfor t h i n t he court ’ s O r derG r ant i ng Sum m aryJ udgm entdat ed N ovember20, 2002.- 5-

W e l i kew i s e affi r m t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or deron s um m aryj udgm ent conce r ni ng pl ai nt i ff’ s fi ve r emai ni ng cl ai m s . H er e, the courtcorr ect l yi dent i fi ed hers econd, t hi r d, and fourt h cl ai m s as al l egi ng a br eac h of the s et t l ement a g re e m e n t, w h ic h th e E E O C h e ld w a s in v a lid . A s to p lain tiff ’s first c laim fo r re lief, the d istric t co u rt c h a ra c ter ize d th is cl ai m as al l egi ng bot h a br eac h of the s et t l ementagr eementand a mi s handl i ng o f h e rp r i o ra d mi n i s t r a t i v e c o mp l a i n t s . I n a d d i t i o n t o th e fa c tth a tth e E E OC hel d t he agr eementi nval i d, hergr i evanc es aboutthe mi s handl i ng of herpr i or com plai nts w ere necessar i l yres olved w hen the E E O C rei nst at ed those c o m p la in ts fo r f

u rt h e r c o n s id e ra tio n . Fi nal l y , t he di s t r i ctpr oper l ygr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton the m i s r epr es ent at i on cl ai m , beca us e the U ni t ed St at es had notw ai ved s over ei gn im m u n ity u n d e r t h e F e d e ra l T o rt C la im s A c t, 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 6 8 0 (h ). T h ere fo re, w e a ffirm the o rde r fo r sum m aryjud g m en t on p lai n ti ff ’s r emai ni ng cl ai m s fort he r eas ons s etfor th i n the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s O r derdat ed N ovember1, 2004. A p p o in tm e n t O f C o u n se l O n th re e se p a ra te o c c a sio n s, p lain tiff re q u e ste d th a t th e d istric t co u rt appoi ntcouns el t o r epr es entheri n the l aw s ui t . E ach t i m e, the courtdeni ed the m o tio n in a w ri tte n o rd e r.- 6-

T her e i s no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o couns el i n ei thera Ti t l e V I I cas e or o th e r c iv il c a s e . C a s tn e rv . C o lo . S p r in gs C a b le v is io n , 979 F. 2d 1417, 1420 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (T itl e V II); D ur r e v. D emps ey , 8 6 9 F . 2 d 5 4 3 , 5 4 7 (10 th C ir . 1989) ( ci vi l cas e) . T her e ar e, how ever , tw o s t atut es thatappl yt o a ca s e s uch as t hi s : t he fi r s ti s 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 5( f) ( 1) , w hi ch al l ow s a courtt o appoi nt co u n sel fo r a c lai m an t i n a T it le V II case ; th e se co n d is 28 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(1), w h ich a llo w s a c o u rt to a ttem p t to o b tain c o u n se l fo r a n in fo rm a p a u p e ris p e rs o n in a c iv il c a s e . I n exer ci s i ng i t s di s cr et i on t o appoi ntcouns el i n a Ti t l e V I I cas e, the d istric t co u rt sh o u ld c o n sid e r: (1 ) th e f in a n c ial in a b ili tyto a ffo rd c o u n se l; ( 2) di l i gence i n s ear chi ng forcouns el ; ( 3) the mer i t s of the cl ai m s ; and ( 4) the a b ility to p re s e n t th e c a s e w ith o u t c o u n s e l. C as tner , 9 7 9 F . 2 d at 14 2 0 -21 . In t he exe r ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on t o s eek vol unt eercouns el i n otherci vi l cas es , the cour ts houl d cons i der : ( 1) t he mer i t s of the cl ai m ; ( 2) the natur e of the fa ctual i s s ues r ai s ed i n t he cl ai m s ; ( 3) the abi l i tyt o pr es entthe cl ai m s ; and ( 4) the c o m p le x ity o f

th e is s u e s ra is e d b yth e c la im s . R u c ks v . B o e rg e r m a n n , 57 F. 3d 9 7 8 , 9 7 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T hi s courtr evi ew s t he deni al of a r eques tforcouns el i n T i t l e V I I cas es and o th e r c iv il c a s e s u n d e r t h e s a m e s ta n d a rd

– a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . C as tner , 979 F. 2d a t 1 4 2 2 -2 3 ; R u c ks , 57 F. 3d at979.- 7-

H er e, t he r ecor d demonstr at es thatthe fi r s ttw o or der s cons i der ed the rel evan tfact ors for appoint i ng cou nsel i n T i t l e V II cases, i ncludi ng tho se announce d i n C astner, and appl i ed thos e fa ct or s t o the fa ct s pr es ent ed by pl ai nt i ff. T he thi r d or der , w hi ch w as ent er ed af t erpl ai nt i ff’ s T i t l e V I I cl ai m had been di s m i s s ed, cons i der ed the r el evantfac t or s out l i ned i n R ucks and appl i ed t hos e fa ct or s t o t he fa ct s pr es ent ed bypl ai nt i ff. W e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on. C o sts In its o rd e r fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t d ism iss in g p lain tiff ’s first th ro u g h fif th cl ai m s , t he di s t r i ctcourtor der ed thatdefe ndant s be aw ar ded thei rcos t s as the pr evai l i ng par t i es . D efe ndant s t i m el yfi l ed thei rbi l l of cos t s , and the cl erk t axed co sts i n the a m o u n t of $ 6 7 3 . 7 5 ($5 5 9 . 7 5 fo r fe es fo r th e tran script an d co u rt report er for pl ai nti ff’s deposi t i on and $1 14 . 00 for the co stof co py i ng defe nd ants ’ tw o m o tio n s fo r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, th e irre p lie s , a n d a s u p p le m e n ta l m o tio n ). T he courtl at erdeni ed pl ai nt i ff’ s Fed. R . C i v. P. 54( d) m ot i on forj udi ci al r evi ew of co st s. A s sh e d id in the d istri ct co u rt , p lai n ti ff claim s o n ap p ea l th at th e c o u rt ’s o rd e r w a s e rro r, b e c a u se sh e is “ in d ig e n t.” S u p p l. R . I, do c . 1 4 8 a t 3 . D e fe n d a n ts cl ai m t hatan aw ar d of cos t s i s pr operagai ns tan i n form a paupe r i s partypur s uant t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(f) (1) , and t hat 28 U . S . C . § 1 92 0 au tho ri zes r ecov eryof these c o s ts .- 8-

W e re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s a w a rd o f c o s ts fo r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S e e Tilto n v . C ap ita l C itie s/A B C, In c ., 115 F. 3d 1471, 1474- 79 ( 10th C i r . 1997) (r e v ie w in g s e v e ra l ite m s o f c o s ts a w a rd e d u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 2 0 ). Feder al R . C i v. P. 54( d) ( 1) pr ovi des forcos t s t o be aw ar ded t o the pr evai l i ng par t yas a mat t erof cour s e, unl es s the courtotherw i s e di r ect s , and “[e ] xceptw hen expr es s pr ovi s i on ther efori s m ade . . . i n a s t atut e of the U ni t ed S t at es. ” T he in form a pau peri s st atute, 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(f) (1) , provides:

“ [j]u d g m e n t m a yb e re n d e re d fo r c o sts a t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e su it o r a c tio n a s in ot herpr ocee di ngs , ” w i t h cert ai n exce pt i ons thatdo notappl yi n thi s cas e. T h ere is no q u esti o n that the c o sts aw ard ed b ythe d istri ct co u rtare re c o v e ra b le u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 2 0 , a n d c a s e la w in te rp re tin g th e s ta tu te . See, e. g. , C al l i cr at e v. Far m l and Indus . , Inc . , 139 F. 3d 1336, 1339 ( 10th C i r . 1998) (c o sts o f tak in g a n d tra n sc rib in g d e p o sitio n s); Ti l t on , 115 F. 3d at1475 ( copy i ng c o sts ). In ste a d , the o n lyiss u e is w h e th e r th e c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in aw ar di ng cos t s agai ns tpl ai nt i ff a nd i n favorof defendant s as the pr evai l i ng p a rties , b e c a u se sh e is in d ig e n t. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d is c re tio n . I ndeed, t hi s cour tr eac hed a s i m i l arr es ul ti n R odrigu ez v. Whit i ngFarm s, Inc . , 360 F. 3d 1180, 1190- 91 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . I n R odr iguez , p lai n ti ffs w h o w ere in d ig e n t an d lo st a c lo se a n d d ifficu lt ca se , arg u e d th a t th e ysh o u ld n o t h a v e to p a yd e fe n d a n ts ’ c o s ts . Id . a t1 1 9 0 ( q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . Wh i l e we- 9-

acknow l edged thata courtm aycons i deri ndi gentci r cumst ance s i n exer ci s i ng di s cr et i on w hethert o aw ar d cos t s , w e conc l uded thatthe di s tr i ctcourtdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n aw ar di ng cos t s t o the pr evai l i ng partys i m pl ybeca us e the n o n -p re v a ilin g p a rt ie s w e re in d ig e n t. Id . a t 1 1 9 0 -9 1 . T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge