Opinion ID: 2982840
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Banks’s claim of indigence

Text: Banks further argues that the court erred by taxing her with Bosch’s costs despite her showing of indigence. A losing party’s indigence weighs against taxing her with the winning party’s costs. Singleton, 241. F.3d at 539. Nonetheless, district courts retain a substantial amount of discretion to determine whether or not to tax costs against indigent plaintiffs. Id. at 539-40. When a party claims indigency, the district court must make “a determination of his or her capacity to pay the costs assessed.” Sales, 873 F.2d at 120. Furthermore, “district judges are encouraged to consider the question of indigency fully for the record.” Abdur-Rahman v. Ballinger, 16 F.3d 1218, 1994 WL 18011, at  (6th Cir. 1994) (table) (quoting In re Ruben, 825 F.2d 977, 987 (6th Cir. 1987)). Here, Banks’s motion to the district court included an affidavit asserting that she has no yearly income, her only substantial asset is her car, and she is dependent on the government for healthcare. R. 78-1, PageID 1491. Banks entered no other information into the record to support her claim of indigency. The district court opinion discussed Banks’s affidavit claiming indigency, yet nonetheless concluded that she had failed to show that she was incapable of paying Bosch’s costs. Because the district court considered the facts supporting Banks’s claim of indigency and her ability to pay before taxing her with Bosch’s costs, we find no abuse of discretion.