Henneberry v. City of Newark ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOHN PATRICK HENNEBERRY, Case No. 13-cv-05238-TSH 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: BILL OF COSTS 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 468 10 CITY OF NEWARK, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 After judgment was entered in their favor, Defendants Karl Fredstrom and City of Newark 14 submitted a bill of costs totaling $6,784.15. ECF No. 468. Plaintiff John Henneberry has filed an 15 objection. ECF No. 479. Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants are the prevailing parties. 16 Instead, he requests the Court deny Defendants’ costs because he is indigent and because this case 17 involved important constitutional rights. 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides that, “[u]nless a federal statute, these 19 rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to 20 the prevailing party.” “By its terms, the rule creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to a 21 prevailing party, but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Ass’n of 22 Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). In view of this 23 presumption, “it is incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the costs should not be 24 awarded.” Stanley v. Univ. of S. California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation 25 omitted). 26 Courts need not give reasons for abiding by the presumption to award costs. Save Our 27 Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if a court declines to award 1 or inequitable to [do so].” Ass’n of Mexican Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 593. “Appropriate 2 reasons for denying costs include: (1) the substantial public importance of the case, (2) the 3 closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, 4 (4) the plaintiff’s limited financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties.” 5 Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247-48 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Ass’n of 6 Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 592-93). “This is not ‘an exhaustive list of “good reasons” 7 for declining to award costs,’ but rather a starting point for analysis.” Id. at 1248 (quoting Ass’n of 8 Mexican-Am. Educators, 231 F.3d at 593). 9 The Court finds it is appropriate to deny an award of costs because Plaintiff has established 10 that he is indigent. See Stanley, 178 F.3d at 1080 (“Costs are properly denied when a plaintiff 11 ‘would be rendered indigent should she be forced to pay’ the amount assessed.”). Plaintiff has 12 established that he is indigent and receives disability income and food stamps from the County. 13 Objection at 2; see also Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 477. The Court has 14 already deemed him eligible for his litigation fees to be waived. ECF No. 478. As such, this 15 factor weighs in favor of disallowing costs. See M. M. v. Cty. of San Mateo, 2020 WL 3251175, at 16 *2 (N.D. Cal. June 16, 2020) (“[I]f defendants were permitted to seek recovery of $9,483.65 in 17 costs against plaintiff, she would suffer tremendous financial hardship, and such award of costs 18 would likely render her indigent.”); Dudgeon v. Cty. of Sonoma, 2021 WL 6091706, at *2 (N.D. 19 Cal. Dec. 23, 2021) (excusing payment of costs where plaintiff cited his family’s limited financial 20 resources and his own inability to work). 21 Further, the Court finds that an award of costs for Defendants could chill future and 22 analogous civil rights litigation. “Imposing high costs on losing civil rights plaintiffs of modest 23 means may chill civil rights litigation and the vindication of important rights under civil rights 24 laws.” Lopez v. Nguyen, 2017 WL 512773, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017). “Without civil rights 25 litigants who are willing to test the boundaries of our laws, we would not have made much of the 26 progress that has occurred in this nation since [Brown v. Board of Education].” Economus v. City 27 and County of San Francisco, 2019 WL 3293292, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2019) (citing Stanley, 1 2019). In similar circumstances where costs are sought against individuals of financially limited 2 || means, the Ninth Circuit has upheld a district court’s determination that disallowed such costs. 3 See Escriba, 743 F.3d at 1247-49 (affirming denial of costs of $13,958.16 where the plaintiff’s 4 annual income was $11,622 because the amount in the context of the plaintiff’s financial status 5 || would present a “serious danger” of chilling future civil rights actions); Draper v. Rosario, 836 6 || F.3d 1072, 1088 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that an award of costs against an individual with 7 virtually no financial resources in the amount of $3,018.35 was an abuse of discretion because 8 such a large cost award could potentially chill similar civil rights lawsuits). Plaintiff's case 9 involved constitutional claims related to his arrest and incarceration, including the First and Fourth 10 |; Amendments. As such, the Court finds that awarding costs would discourage plaintiffs in 11 similarly situated financial circumstances from filing a case that involves an essential civil right. 12 See Godoy v. Cty. of Sonoma, No. 2016 WL 6663003, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2016) 13 (determining that plaintiffs “raised important issues regarding the potential use of excessive force 14 and retaliatory arrests against civil rights protestors by the Sonoma County Sheriffs’ department”); 15 Lopez, 2017 WL 512773, at *2 (finding that a section 1983 claim of excessive force by a law a 16 || enforcement officer “is an issue of substantial public importance”); Tater-Alexander v. Amerjan, 3 17 2011 WL 1740697, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2011) (denying award of costs where plaintiff was S 18 indigent and there was evidence to support his civil rights claims, including under the First 19 Amendment); 20 Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to excuse Plaintiffs obligation to pay 21 Defendants’ request for costs. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 || Dated: May 21, 2024 25 LU \ - Lj THOMAS S. HIXSON 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28