Court Opinion

ID: 9367529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 01:00:23.944823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.998445
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10120         Document: 00516630337             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/31/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10120
                                     Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                     ____________                               January 31, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Travis Blank,                                                                      Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   United States of America; Charles Eilert, D.O.; Aminia
   Baruti, M.D.,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:20-CV-96
                      ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Travis Blank, former federal prisoner # 16486-078 and proceeding pro
   se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims under the Federal Tort
   Claims Act against the United States, following a bench trial and the award
   of costs to the United States. Blank contends the court: erred by concluding

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10120      Document: 00516630337              Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                        No. 22-10120

   he failed to establish his medical-malpractice claims; and abused its
   discretion in awarding costs to the United States. (Blank’s claims against the
   two other defendants were dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds at the
   summary-judgment stage and were not timely appealed. Accordingly, they
   are not before us in this appeal.)
          We review the district court’s bench trial “findings of fact for clear
   error and conclusions of law de novo”, Villafranca v. United States, 587 F.3d
   257, 260 (5th Cir. 2009); the award of costs, for “a clear abuse of discretion”,
   U.S. ex rel. Long v. GSDMIdea City, L.L.C., 807 F.3d 125, 128 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Where, as here, appellant fails to provide the transcript necessary to
   evaluate the district court’s factual findings—which the parties agreed before
   trial were the only issues in dispute—we have the discretion either to dismiss
   the “appeal for failure to provide a complete transcript of the record on
   appeal” or to “decide those issues which can be reached on the record
   before” us. Coats v. Pierre, 890 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir. 1989) (citation
   omitted). We opt for the former procedure because the record on appeal is
   insufficient for our reviewing whether the court committed clear error in its
   factual findings. Id.
          As for the bill of costs, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)
   establishes “a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded
   costs”. Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 793 (5th Cir. 2006). “[A] district
   court may, but is not required to, deny a prevailing party costs where suit was
   brought in good faith and denial is based on at least one of” certain factors,
   including, relevant here, “the losing party’s limited financial resources” and
   the “substantial benefit conferred to the public”. Smith v. Chrysler Grp.,
   L.L.C., 909 F.3d 744, 753 (5th Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original) (citation
   omitted).   Even assuming Blank brought his action in good faith, he
   demonstrated neither limited financial resources nor that this proceeding

                                             2
Case: 22-10120        Document: 00516630337        Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                    No. 22-10120

   conferred a substantial benefit to the public. E.g., id. The court did not abuse
   its discretion in awarding costs to the United States. E.g., U.S. ex rel. Long,
   807 F.3d at 128.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3