Opinion ID: 550119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Costs taxed to an in forma pauperis Title VII plaintiff.

Text: 20 Washington argues that the district court erred by taxing costs against her. When a party proceeds in forma pauperis, [j]udgment may be rendered for costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other cases.... 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e). However, for in forma pauperis litigants, a federal court may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding ... without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor.... 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(a). We have held that the quoted statutory language indicates that Congress intended for qualified litigants to be able to proceed without advancing costs, but that they may be ultimately liable for costs. Lay v. Anderson, 837 F.2d 231, 232 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam). 21 Washington argues that the as in other cases language of section 1915(e) refers to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) which provides that [e]xcept when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules, costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.... Washington further argues that Title VII contains an exception to Rule 54(d). Title VII provides: Upon application by the complainant and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may ... authorize the commencement of the action without payment of fees, costs, or security. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(f)(1). 22 We hold that the district court did not err by taxing costs to Washington for two reasons. First, Title VII provides the district court with discretion regarding whether to tax costs to a complainant. Washington does not argue that the district court abused its discretion. 23 Second, it is apparent that the effect of section 2000e-5(f)(1) of Title VII is the same as the effect of section 1915(a). The language in the two statutes is very similar. The major difference is that section 1915(a) contains the word prepayment, whereas Title VII uses the word payment. This is a distinction without a difference. Section 1915(a) permits a court to authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding without prepayment of costs. Title VII permits the commencement of the action without payment of costs. Section 1915(a) covers all phases of litigation. Thus, prepayment evidences an intention for in forma pauperis litigants to remain potentially liable for costs through prosecution or defense of any suit. By contrast, Title VII, which contains the word payment, relates only to the commencement of the action. Title VII does not make an exception to the general rule that federal courts may award costs to the prevailing party under Rule 54(d). 24