Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

HUNT v. REYES, 2:08-cv-00181-MCE-CKD (PC). (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150427652 Visitors: 14
Filed: Apr. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , Chief District Judge . In bringing this lawsuit, Plaintiff Michael A. Hunt, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, alleged that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment right to file grievances and pursue civil rights litigation pertaining to his incarceration. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendant David Rios placed false documentation about Plaintiff in his central file after Plai
More

ORDER

In bringing this lawsuit, Plaintiff Michael A. Hunt, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, alleged that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment right to file grievances and pursue civil rights litigation pertaining to his incarceration. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendant David Rios placed false documentation about Plaintiff in his central file after Plaintiff filed a grievance, and because Defendant Rios learned that Plaintiff had filed a prior lawsuit.

On January 7, 2015, this Court entered judgment in Defendant Rios' favor following a jury verdict for the defense. Defendant Rios subsequently filed a Bill of Costs in the amount of $980.10. The propriety of that costs bill is presently before the Court.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to the prevailing party, "but vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs." Ass'n of Mexican-American Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The imposition of considerable costs against a prisoner in a case of this nature could have an undesired chilling effect on civil rights litigation in an important area (see, e.g., Stanley v. Univ. of Southern Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999)), and the Court therefore exercises its discretion to disallow costs herein. Defendant's Application to Tax Costs (ECF No. 180) is accordingly DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer