1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 17cv2345-MMA (JLB)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO RETAX COSTS

13 BUENROSTRO, et al., [Doc. No. 49] 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Lance Williams, a California prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

(a), brought this civil rights action 19 pursuant to

. Plaintiff alleged various violations of his First, Eighth, and 20 Fourteenth Amendment rights by correctional officers at R. J. Donovan Correctional 21 Facility in San Diego, California. Defendants moved for summary judgment as to all 22 claims. See Doc. No. 33. The Court granted Defendants’ motion and entered judgment 23 accordingly. See Doc. Nos. 38, 39. Thereafter, Defendants submitted a bill of costs 24 seeking reimbursement for the cost of deposing Plaintiff. See Doc. No. 40. The Clerk of 25 Court awarded Defendants the full amount of $1148.70, over Plaintiff’s objection. See 26 Doc. Nos. 46, 48. Plaintiff now moves to retax costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 27 Procedure 54(d). See Doc. No. 49. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 28 Plaintiff’s motion. 1 DISCUSSION 2 As a matter of course, the prevailing party in civil litigation is entitled to costs. See 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Despite Plaintiff’s IFP status, “[j]udgment may be rendered for 4 costs at the conclusion of the suit or action as in other proceedings . . ..”

1915(f)(1). Section 1915(f)(2)(A) provides that “[i]f the judgment against a prisoner 6 includes the payment of costs under this subsection, the prisoner shall be required to pay 7 the full amount of the costs ordered.”

Accordingly, “[o]nce costs are awarded, a 8 prisoner cannot avoid responsibility based on indigence.” Janoe v. Stone, No. 06-CV- 9 1511-JM,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2012). 10 Costs are limited to those sets forth in

. See Crawford Fitting Co. 11 v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc.,

, 442–43 (1987). Section 1920 permits the prevailing 12 party to recover costs for “fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts 13 necessarily obtained for use in the case.”

. Furthermore, this District’s 14 Civil Local Rules provide for the recovery of costs for copies of “both video and 15 stenographic depositions,” so long as “it could reasonably be expected the deposition 16 would be used for trial preparation.” CivLR 54.1(b)(3). Here, Defendants clearly 17 deposed Plaintiff for the purpose of trial preparation. Defendants introduced Plaintiff’s 18 deposition testimony into evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment. 19 See

(“Depositions need not be introduced in evidence or used at trial to be taxable so 20 long as at the time it was taken it could reasonably be expected that the deposition would 21 be used for trial preparation, rather than mere discovery.”). And the cost associated 22 therewith is minimal considering the nature and duration of this litigation. 23 The award of costs, however, is ultimately a matter within the court’s discretion. 24 See Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v. Calif.,

, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) 25 (citing Nat’l Info. Servs., Inc. v. TRW, Inc.,

, 1471 (9th Cir. 1995)). In 26 determining whether the award of costs is appropriate in the context of a losing civil 27 rights plaintiff’s motion, the court should consider: (1) the plaintiff’s limited financial 28 1 ||/resources, and (2) the chilling effect on future civil rights litigants of imposing high costs. 2 || See Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal.,

(9th Cir. 1999). 3 Plaintiff invokes his disabled status and indicates that he has no means to pay the 4 ||award. As to the latter concern, payment of costs will be in monthly installments 5 || equaling “20 percent of the preceding month’s income credited to the prisoner’s 6 || account,” so long as the balance before the monthly deduction is greater than $10. See 28

(b)(2), ((2)(B). The Court is satisfied that this procedure “will ensure that 8 || Plaintiff is not completely stripped of the means to meet his basic needs.” Duvigneaud v. 9 || Garcia, No. 04CV580 BTMWMC,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 5, 2007). As 10 |/to the former concern, Plaintiffs disabilities do not automatically exempt him from the 11 || payment of costs and the Court declines to exercise its discretion to retax costs on this 12 ||basis. Despite Plaintiff's disabilities, he has proven himself a competent litigator and 13 || otherwise fails to demonstrate why the balance of equities disfavor an award of costs in 14 action. Neither has Plaintiff demonstrated how the costs awarded in this case would 15 ||have a chilling effect on potential civil rights plaintiffs. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to retax costs. 18 IT ISSO ORDERED. 19 || DATED: May 27, 2020 Vath Tu = i Le 20 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28