Hawkins v. City of Lexington

Case: 21-60838 Document: 00516227526 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 7, 2022
No. 21-60838 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Sharron Hawkins,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
City of Lexington; Chief Robert Kirklin, in his official
capacity; Officer Markus March, in his individual and official
capacity; Officer Elijah Brooks, in his individual and official
capacity; Officer John Doe, in his/her individual and official capacity,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:19-CV-606
Before Jolly, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60838 Document: 00516227526 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2022
No. 21-60838
Sharron Hawkins, proceeding pro se, challenges the district court’s
taxation of $3,144.80 in costs against her following her unsuccessful civil
rights suit. Finding no abuse of discretion, we AFFIRM.
I
Sharron Hawkins filed suit claiming the defendants violated various of
her rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, most of which occurred
following an adverse encounter with law enforcement at a laundromat. A
third party accused Hawkins of stealing her laundry and called police. Police
arrived, handcuffed Hawkins while investigating, and released her eight
minutes later after a review of security footage showed Hawkins had not
stolen anything. The district court dismissed all of Hawkins’s claims at
summary judgment, finding that her assertion that officers used excessive
force was contradicted by video evidence. Hawkins does not contest the grant
of summary judgment on appeal, but instead challenges only the district
court’s decision to tax costs of $3,144.80 to her.
II
We review the district court’s decision to award costs for abuse of
discretion. Edwards v. 4JLJ, LLC, 976 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2020). “Our
review is narrow because the district court has wide discretion . . . to decide
whether, and to what extent, to award costs.” Id. There is a “strong
presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs.” Pacheco v.
Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 793 (5th Cir. 2006). Financial hardship, without more,
is not a sufficient reason to deny costs. Smith v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 909 F.3d
744, 753 (5th Cir. 2018); see also Moore v. CITGO Refin. & Chems. Co., 735
F.3d 309, 320 (5th Cir. 2013) (“[R]educing or eliminating a prevailing party’s
cost award based on its wealth—either relative or absolute—is impermissible
as a matter of law.”).
Case: 21-60838 Document: 00516227526 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/07/2022
No. 21-60838
Here, the district court properly exercised its discretion in imposing
costs on Hawkins. The court acknowledged Hawkins’s assertion that the
costs would pose a financial hardship due to her unemployment and carefully
considered any factors which might justify denying costs. However, as the
district court found, there was no misconduct by defendants, nor did the case
present a close issue of unsettled law or confer a significant benefit on the
public. See Smith, 909 F.3d at 753. As we have indicated, Hawkins’s financial
difficulties alone cannot support the denial of costs. Id. And while Hawkins
argues that the attorney who represented her in district court proceedings
failed to notify her that she could be forced to pay costs, we have never held
that any such explicit warning is required. Hawkins has thus failed to
overcome the presumption that costs will be awarded.
Because there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s award
of costs, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
3