Opinion ID: 3064130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Order to Pay Costs

Text: Finally, Beal argues that the district court erred by not granting her relief 5 from court costs. She alleges that she is being punished for exercising her constitutional rights. “This court will not disturb an award of costs unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated.” Manor Healthcare Corp. v. Lomelo, 929 F.2d 633, 639 (11th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). “[T]he proper inquiry is not how the reviewing court would have ruled if it had been considering the case in the first place, but whether the premise upon which the district court exercised its discretion was correct.” Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that, “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs - other than attorney’s fees - should be allowed to the prevailing party.” F ED. R. C IV. P. 54(d)(1). Here, Beal has neither alleged nor demonstrated how the district court abused its discretion in ordering that she be taxed costs. The district court properly awarded costs to the prevailing party and taxed Beal only the court costs, not including attorney’s fees. Thus, the district court has not abused its discretion.