Denton v. Thrasher ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 MICHAEL DENTON, CASE NO. 3:18-cv-5017-BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO RETAX COSTS 10 TIM THRASHER, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michael Denton’s Motion to Retax 14 Costs, Dkt. 196. The Court has considered the briefing filed in support of and in 15 opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and grants the motion for the 16 reasons stated below. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 Denton is currently incarcerated by the State of Washington and has been held in 19 multiple state facilities during his term of incarceration. Dkt. 185 at 1. He is presently 20 detained at Monroe Correctional Complex. Id. In his original and amended complaints, 21 Denton claimed his previous jailors at the Washington State Correctional Facility in 22 Walla Walla violated his constitutional rights by failing to provide him adequate medical 1 and mental health treatment, depriving him access to magazines, retaliating against him 2 for filing grievances, housing him in observations cells lacking toilets or running water, 3 failing to prevent him from self-harming, and punishing him for his mental health. See 4 Dkts. 1-1, 11, 18, 64, 116. 5 Denton’s longest surviving claim related to a grievance he filed on January 1, 6 2018 asserting that prison officials failed to appropriately respond to him self-harming 7 while he was on suicide watch. See Dkt. 116. After that incident, while strapped to a 8 restraint bed, Denton asked Corrections Officer Morris, who was observing him at the 9 time, to transcribe three grievances for him. Dkt. 158 at 9. Officer Morris transcribed one 10 grievance for Denton, which Denton indicated was to be filed as an emergency grievance. 11 Id. After multiple rounds of briefing and an evidentiary hearing, the Court found that 12 Denton failed to exhaust his administrative remedies related to that grievance. See Dkt. 13 187. Because that was Denton’s only remaining claim, the Court entered a judgment and 14 closed the case. Dkt. 188. 15 Defendants moves for costs of $2,766.91, Dkt. 189, and the Clerk of the Court 16 granted that motion, Dkt. 195. The requested fees are for twelve deposition transcripts. 17 See Dkts. 189, 189-1. Denton moves to retax those costs, arguing that he is indigent, that 18 he is incarcerated and will be for the foreseeable future, that some of Defendants’ costs 19 were unnecessary, and that granting costs in this case would chill future civil rights 20 claimants. Dkt. 196. Defendants argue that costs are appropriate because Denton has not 21 presented evidence that he is indigent, that he will not be chilled from filing further 22 1 lawsuits because he frequently sues his jailors, and that the majority of the requested 2 costs resulted from depositions that Denton himself requested. Dkt. 197. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 A district court has the discretion to refuse to award costs to a prevailing party 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072, 1087 6 (9th Cir. 2016). Appropriate reasons for denying costs include: 7 (1) the substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar 8 actions, (4) the plaintiff’s limited financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties. This is not “an exhaustive list of ‘good 9 reasons’ for declining to award costs,” but rather a starting point for analysis. 10 Id. (quoting Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236, 1247–48 (9th Cir. 11 2014)). 12 Denton has been granted in forma pauperis status. Dkt. 10. The fact that a plaintiff 13 has been granted in forma pauperis status in the action does not, by itself, preclude the 14 plaintiff from paying costs. Draper, 836 F.3d at 1087. The Prison Litigation Reform Act 15 requires that a prisoner pay costs that are awarded on a monthly payment plan. Id. 16 Therefore, the resources of the plaintiff and the economic disparity of the parties are to be 17 considered “in the context of the record as a whole.” Id. While Denton has not submitted 18 any evidence regarding his income or ability to pay costs in support of his motion, the 19 Court notes that he is presently incarcerated and that he has no ability to earn any income 20 given that he is housed in administrative segregation. 21 22 1 Further, all of the given reasons in Draper for denying costs apply in this case. 2 The case is of substantial importance: ensuring the State has not violated a prisoner’s 3 constitutional rights. The issues were close and difficult, and ultimately the case was 4 dismissed based on a procedural flaw, not because it was frivolous.1 While Defendants 5 argue that Denton will not be deterred from filing future lawsuits even if made to pay 6 costs in this case, other potential plaintiffs may be deterred by such a holding. Finally, 7 Denton has no resources and is not likely to have any resources in the foreseeable future. 8 The fact that he has other open lawsuits against state correctional officers, which 9 Defendants themselves believe will be unsuccessful, see Dkt. 197 at 3, is not a reason to 10 award costs against an indigent, incarcerated, pro se plaintiff. 11 The Court concludes Denton has no ability to pay costs and should not be made to 12 pay costs in this case where he presented concerning facts but was unable to overcome 13 procedural hurdles. 14 15 16 17 18 1 Although the Court ultimately agreed that Denton failed to administratively exhaust his claims, and it acknowledges that his claims faced other procedural hurdles, he did present 19 incontrovertible evidence that corrections officers allowed him to repeatedly self-harm. See, e.g., Dkt. 120-6 at 167–68 (log notes stating that “Shift Sgt. Bayer wants no staff interaction with 20 Offender Denton . . . until self-harm results in copious amounts of blood or active bleeding.”) (cleaned up); id. at 159–61 (log notes documenting that Denton was permitted to continuously 21 cut himself and hit his head against the door for nearly three hours). While the Court does not reach any conclusions about whether these instances or any other instances amounted to 22 constitutional violations, the facts of this case are concerning and are certainly not frivolous. 1 III. ORDER 2 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Michael Denton’s Motion to 3 Retax Costs, Dkt. 196, is GRANTED, the Clerk’s Order Awarding Costs, Dkt. 195, is 4 VACATED, and Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Costs, Dkt. 189, is DENIED. 5 Dated this 17th day of May, 2022. A 6 7 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22