-
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEAN DAVID SENGENBERGER, No. 04-35664 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. v. RALPH TOWNSEND, President, Idaho CV-01-00578-MHW District of Idaho, Board of Corrections, State of Boise Idaho, ORDER Respondent-Appellee. Filed December 12, 2006 Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges. ORDER The State of Idaho, as the prevailing party, has filed a bill of costs for $301. Sean Sengenberger objects to the cost bill, primarily on the ground of his indigency. We previously have noted that “courts should consider the financial resources of the plaintiff and the amount of costs in civil rights cases.” Stanley v. Univ. of So. Calif.,
178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). “Indigency is a factor that the dis- trict court may properly consider in deciding whether to award costs.”
Id. This samerationale applies with equal force to habeas corpus petitioners. There is, however, a countervail- ing consideration to be taken into account. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act were intended, in part, to ameliorate some of the costs to the states in defending against the tide of habeas peti- tions. We are concerned here, however, with costs on appeal. 19349 19350 SENGENBERGER v. TOWNSEND In habeas cases, the petitioner cannot take an appeal without obtaining a certificate of appealability (COA), which requires that such a certification may issue only upon a “substantial showing of the denial of the constitutional right” for each issue to be appealed. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2),(3). Thus, because there is a mechanism in place (the COA requirement) to monitor and preclude the taking of frivolous appeals, the award of costs is not required to discourage unmeritorious appeals. With these principles in mind, we turn to the circumstances of this case, as we do not suggest that there is an absolute pro- hibition on costs in all circumstances. Sengenberger, the peti- tioner here, is indigent. The appeal presented substantial constitutional questions. To award costs against Sengenber- ger, given his financial status, would undermine the taking of meritorious appeals. The State of Idaho’s bill of costs is denied. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2006 Thomson/West.
Document Info
Docket Number: 04-35664
Filed Date: 12/11/2006
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/13/2015