Boone v. Ruby

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · June 2, 2025 · No. 2:20-cv-02100

Summary

This United States District Court order resolves a motion for costs in a pro se civil rights action filed by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1), the court exercises its discretion to tax costs against the plaintiff, finding that he acted in bad faith by failing to prosecute the case despite proceeding in forma pauperis. The court grants the Defendants' bill of costs and awards them $758.25.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
William B. Shubb
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
June 2, 2025
Docket number
2:20-cv-02100
Procedural posture
Defendants' motion for costs after judgment in a §1983 civil rights action.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
granted

Topics

civil rightscivil procedure

Practice areas

civil rightscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court may award costs to the prevailing party despite the plaintiff's limited financial resources and pro se status.

Holdings

  1. Defendants' bill of costs is granted and costs in the amount of $758.25 are awarded.

Key quotations

Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure creates a rebuttable presumption that costs, other than attorney’s fees, should be awarded to the prevailing party. However, a district court has the discretion to refuse an award of costs. (at 1)

Factual background

Nicky Boone, a state prisoner, proceeded pro se in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The district court entered judgment on December 18, 2024 granting the defendants' motion for judgment. The defendants now seek a bill of costs of $758.25.

Procedural history

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a §1983 civil rights action pro se. Judgment was entered on December 18, 2024 granting defendants' motion for judgment. Defendants subsequently moved for costs.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…