2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-1-2015

Mary Primrose v. Trent Mellot

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This May is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University

School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of

Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Mary Primrose v. Trent Mellot" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 447.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/447
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 14-3356

_______________

MARY K. PRIMROSE,

Appellant

v.

TRENT MELLOT;

TOWNSHIP OF UPPER ALLEN

________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-11-cv-00835)

District Judge: Hon. Yvette Kane

_______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

April 21, 2015

BEFORE: FISHER, CHAGARES and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed May 1, 2015)

_______________

OPINION*

_______________

______________ 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

COWEN, Circuit Judge.

Mary Primrose (“Appellant”) appeals the District Court’s order overruling her 

objections to a bill of costs and affirming the cost of $2,061.25 taxed by the Clerk of 

Court. For the reasons detailed below, we will affirm.

I.

Because we write solely for the parties, we will only set forth the facts necessary to 

inform our analysis. Appellant filed suit in federal court against Trent Mellot 

(“Appellee”) and the Township of Upper Allen, alleging violations of her federal 

constitutional rights and a state law claim of false arrest. The parties filed cross-motions 

for summary judgment. Appellant’s motion was denied, while Appellee’s motion was 

granted in part only. A jury returned a verdict for the defendants on the remaining claims 

and a judgment in favor of them was entered the same day. We affirmed that judgment. 

Appellee then sought an award of costs in the amount of $3,933.29. Appellant objected, 

arguing that she is indigent and that certain items listed in Appellee’s bill of costs are not 

properly taxable. The Clerk of Court agreed with Appellant in part and reduced the 

award to Appellee to $2,061.25. Appellant then filed objections with the District Court, 

which it overruled and affirmed the taxation of costs. The current appeal followed.

II.

Given the District Court's discretionary equitable power to award costs under Rule 

54(d)(1), taxation of costs is reviewed only for an “abuse of discretion.” In re Paoli R.R. 

Yard PCB Litig., 221 F.3d 449, 458 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). We note that Rule 
3

54(d)(1) “creates the ‘strong presumption’ that costs are to be awarded to the prevailing 

party.” Id. at 462 (citation omitted). 

Appellant argues that the District Court abused its discretion in taxing costs against 

her because she is indigent and unable to pay. But we have held that even if a losing 

party is indigent or unable to pay the full measure of costs, a district court is not required 

to automatically reduce costs. Id. at 464. Here, the District Court considered the fact that 

Appellant’s monthly income is $883.00 per month, that she cannot work, and that she 

receives rent subsidy payments for housing. It then reviewed cases in which courts have 

reduced or vacated costs and concluded that reductions were typically made in cases

involving greater financial burdens than those presented here. Although the District 

Court noted Appellant’s limited monthly income, it again determined that, because the 

costs placed on her were less onerous than in cases where reductions were allowed, the 

costs were reasonable. Under these circumstances, and in light of the analysis conducted 

by the District Court, we cannot conclude that its decision to tax $2,061.25 in costs to 

Appellant constitutes an abuse of discretion.

The cases relied on by Appellant do not convince us otherwise, as in those cases 

too, the court declined to award costs to the prevailing party in instances involving greater 

financial burdens than those suffered by Appellant here. See Yudenko v. Guarinni, No. 

06-cv-4161, 2010 WL 2490679, at *4 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2010) (refusing to require 

plaintiff to pay costs when he had no income, was disabled, did not receive government 

assistance or benefits, had no assets, and owed a debt to Lancaster County in the amount 
4

of $20,000); Lindsey v. Vaughn, No. Civ. A. 93-2030, 2001 WL 1132409, at *1 (E.D. Pa. 

Sept. 24, 2001) (refusing to require plaintiffs to pay costs when one earned only $15 a 

month and the others earned only approximately $30 per month, with no other sources of 

income). To be sure, we make no determination as to whether the District Court, in light 

of Appellant’s limited income, could have decided that a decrease in the award of costs 

would have been appropriate. We merely conclude that its refusal to do so does not 

constitute an abuse of discretion. 

Nor did the District Court abuse its discretion by taxing as costs to Appellant 

certain deposition transcripts and witness fees. Although Appellant concedes that 

discovery depositions are taxable, she nonetheless argues that the deposition costs should 

be excluded because they were not necessary. However, as Appellee points out in his 

brief, the depositions at issue were both cited and used in his motion for summary 

judgment. Accordingly, the decision to include their cost in the award to Appellee was 

not erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 

III.

In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the District Court entered on June 18, 

2014, will be affirmed.