Brooks v. Colorado Department of Corrections et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-02894-CBS
JASON BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID OBA,
PATRICK BLAKE,
ANGIE TURNER,
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
JULIE RUSSELL,
KATHY HOWELL,
DAVID TESSIERE, and
TRUDY SICOTTE,
Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
This action comes before the court on Plaintiff Jason Brooks’ “Motion for Review of
Clerk’s Bill of Costs Determination.” Doc. 176. This court has carefully considered the motion
as well as the CCA Defendants’ Response (Doc. 178), the entire case file, and the applicable law.
For the following reasons, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion.
In civil litigation, it is inevitable that someone must bear the costs associated with the
lawsuit. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that costs are to be awarded to a
prevailing party as a matter of course, unless otherwise provided by statutes, rules, or court
orders. “[I]t is well established that Rule 54 creates a presumption that the district court will
award costs to the prevailing party.” Cantrell v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local
Case No. 1:13-cv-02894-SKC Document 183 filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
2021, 69 F.3d 456, 458-59 (10th Cir. 1995). When a losing party seeks to shift the burden of
costs, it necessarily entails a conclusion that it is fairer for the prevailing party to be saddled with
those expenses. Consequently, the burden is on the cost-opposing party to overcome this
presumption. 	Rodriguez 	v. 	Whiting 	Farms, 	Inc., 	360 	F.3d 	1180, 	1190 	(10th 	Cir.2004).
Furthermore, when a district court denies costs to a prevailing party, it must provide a valid
reason for the denial. Id.
In this case, Plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis, and his indigence is a factor for this
court’s consideration in determining whether to deny Defendants’ presumptive entitlement to
costs. Plaintiff’s indigence is by no means dispositive and the court observes that Congress has
specifically provided that litigants proceeding in forma pauperis shall be liable for costs in the
same manner “as in other proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(1). Further, indigency alone “is not
sufficient in itself to overcome the presumption” that costs will be awarded to the prevailing
party. Mundell v. Bd. of County Com’rs of Saguache County, No. 05-cv-00585-REB-MJW, 2007
WL 1061510, *1 (D. Colo. April 5, 2007) (unpublished decision) (finding that “[a]lthough
indigency is one circumstance that may justify a denial of costs, in this circuit, it is not sufficient
in itself to overcome the presumption created by Rule 54(d)(1).”).
In his motion, Plaintiff relies on his indigence and his good faith in bringing his claims as
reasons to deny the Defendants an award of costs. Doc. 176 at 1-2. Plaintiff stated that he would
supplement his brief with financial support for his claim of idigency; however, to date, no
documents have been provided to this court. While the court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s
financial hardships, it also agrees that “[j]ust as non-indigent litigants must consider the relative
merits of their lawsuit against the pain an unsuccessful suit might inflict on their pocketbook, so
must [indigent plaintiffs] learn to exercise discretion and judgment in their litigious activity and
Case No. 1:13-cv-02894-SKC Document 183 filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
accept the consequences of their costly lawsuits.” McGill v. Faulkner, 18 F.3d 456, 460 (7th
Cir.1994). “Indeed, because the in forma pauperis statute frees them from the obligation of
paying filing fees, costs of service, etc., the specter of a judgment for costs is one of the few
mechanisms that serve to check and moderate the litigiousness of indigent parties.” Jorgensen v.
Montgomery, No. 06-cv-00853-MSK-BNB, 2009 WL 1537958, at *2 (D. Colo. May 31, 2009).
Furthermore, the court notes that Plaintiff has pointed to nothing that the Defendants have
done that caused or exacerbated his indigence, and — as to his good faith — the court assumes
that all of the parties to this action have litigated in good faith. Consequently, the court finds that
on balance, Plaintiff’s indigency does not necessitate a conclusion that the costs associated with
this litigation should be imposed on Defendants.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s “Motion for
Review of Clerk’s Bill of Costs Determination.” Doc. 176. Defendants — as the prevailing
parties — are entitled to their costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Plaintiff’s counsel shall
ensure that Plaintiff is notified of this court’s decision and shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of
this order.1
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 23rd day of January, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Colorado
1 The court recognizes that Plaintiff’s counsel has moved to withdraw as attorney of record in
this case. Doc. 177. When Plaintiff’s counsel has completed his above obligations — as evidenced by an
affidavit filed with the court — the court will address counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Case No. 1:13-cv-02894-SKC Document 183 filed 01/23/17 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3