Thompson v. Saukhla ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 ----oo0oo---- 8 9 FELICIA THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY No. 2:18-cv-02422 WBS KJN AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF 10 KEITH AUSTIN THOMPSON, 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER 12 v. 13 NARINDER SAUKHLA, M.D.; RUTH PORTUGAL; SILOCHANA NAIDOO; 14 BRIAN BRIGGS; MONICA R. CORTEZ; ANDRES D. GALVAN; BETHLEHEM 15 HAILE, M.D.; et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 Before the court are the bills of costs of defendant 20 Portugal (Docket No. 99) and defendants Saukhla and Briggs 21 (Docket No. 100). 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that 23 “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order 24 provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s fees--should be 25 allowed to the prevailing party.” While this Rule creates “a 26 presumption for awarding costs to prevailing parties,” Save Our 27 Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944 (9th Cir. 2003) 28 1 (citations omitted), it “vests in the district court discretion 2 to refuse to award costs.” Ass'n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. 3 State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing 4 National Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 51 F.3d 1470, 1471 (9th 5 Cir. 1995)). In exercising that discretion, the Ninth Circuit has 6 instructed that: 7 Appropriate reasons for denying costs include (1) the substantial public 8 importance of the case, (2) the closeness 9 and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar 10 actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited financial resources, and (5) the economic 11 disparity between the parties. 12 Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247–48 13 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 14 Regarding the financial resources of the plaintiff, the 15 proper inquiry is not whether the plaintiff is currently 16 indigent, but whether an award of costs might make her so. 17 Rivera v. NIBCO, 701 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1143 (E.D. Cal. 2010) 18 (Wanger, J.). “This is not an exhaustive list of good reasons 19 for declining to award costs, but rather a starting point for 20 analysis.” Escriba, 743 F.3d at 1247-48. 21 Another consideration is the extent of the defendant’s 22 victory. In the event of a mixed judgment, it is within the 23 district court’s discretion to require each party to bear its own 24 costs, Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1996), or 25 to reduce the costs awarded to a prevailing party to reflect the 26 extent of their victory, Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106, 1133 27 (9th Cir. 2018). 28 1 Here, plaintiff has submitted evidence of her limited 2 financial resources. (See Pl.’s Notice of Add’l Evid. (Docket 3 No. 103).) Given plaintiff’s modest income, monthly expenses, 4 outstanding debts, and limited savings, the court finds that 5 awarding the costs requested by defendants might well render 6 plaintiff indigent. See Rivera, 701 F. Supp. 2d at 1143. The 7 court further notes that, although defendants prevailed on their 8 federal law claims on summary judgment, because the court 9 declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related 10 state law claims, “defendants were not a prevailing party on the 11 state law claims,” Blight v. City of Manteca, No. 2:15-02513 WBS 12 AC, 2017 WL 5665846, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017), and thus 13 did not obtain a complete victory in this case. See Williams, 14 895 F.3d at 1133. 15 In light of the court’s discretion to reduce the costs 16 awarded to defendants to reflect the extent of their victory, 17 plaintiff’s limited means, the potential chilling effect of 18 imposing such high costs on civil rights litigants, and the lack 19 of any indication this case was brought in bad faith, the court 20 declines to award costs to defendants.1 See Stanley v. Univ. of 21 S. Cal., 178 F. 3d 1069, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 1999); Ass’n of 22 23 1 Plaintiff’s filing of a Notice of Appeal on May 27, 2021 (Docket No. 104), does not alter the court’s ability to 24 enter an Order denying defendants’ requested costs. Though an appeal from a final order normally ousts the district court of 25 jurisidiction over further matters in the case, see 9 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 203.11 at 734, the court retains the power to 26 perform “ministerial” tasks, including the routine assessment of 27 costs. Wright v. Jackson, 522 F.2d 955, 957 (4th Cir. 1975) (citing Independent Productions Corp. v. Loew's, Inc., 184 28 F.Supp. 671, 672 (S.D.N.Y. 1960)). enn nn ene en nnn nn RE OS EE IE ONES I IOS 1 Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 2 592 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 4 | Dated: June 10, 2021 illo A. dé WILLIAM B. SHUBB ° UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28