Cucuta v. City of New York

S.D. New York

Cucuta v. City of New York

25 F. Supp. 3d 420, 2014 WL 3734211, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90992

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJuly 3, 2014

DocketNo. 13 Civ. 0558(AJP)

StatusPublished

This text of 25 F. Supp. 3d 420 (Cucuta v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cucuta v. City of New York, 25 F. Supp. 3d 420, 2014 WL 3734211, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90992 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION & ORDER

ANDREW J. PECK, United States Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Abraham Cucuta filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which Chief Judge Preska granted on October 15, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1: Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Dkt. No. 20: Order Granting IFP Application.) On May 9, 2014, 25 F.Supp.3d 400, 2014 WL 1876529, this Court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed this lawsuit. {See Dkt. No. 80: Opinion & Order.) On June 19, 2014, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), the Clerk of Court entered a Bill of Costs in favor of defendants totaling $1,094.88, $983.20 of which was attributable to deposition transcripts. (Dkt. No. 82: Bill of Costs.) On June 24, 2014, Cucuta filed a letter arguing that his IFP status relieves him of responsibility for the costs identified in the Bill of Costs. (Dkt. No. 83: 6/24/14 Cucuta Letter.)

Contrary to Cucuta’s assertion, the IFP statute and caselaw make clear that Cucuta’s in forma pauperis status does not automatically excuse him from paying costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A) (“If the judgment against a prisoner includes the payment of costs under this subsection, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of the costs ordered.”); see, e.g., D’Attore v. City of N.Y., 10 Civ. 6646, 2014 WL 173482 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2014) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(f) expressly permits costs to be taxed against indigent prisoners.... ”); McMunn v. Mem’l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 97 Civ. 5857, 2003 WL 22910079 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2003) (“[C]osts may be awarded against a losing party even if that party would have diffi[422]*422culty in paying the judgment and even if the party appeared in forma pauperis.”)-, Martin v. Ashcroft, 96 Civ. 7646, 2002 WL 31119434 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) (same).

Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and in this Court’s discretion, Cucuta’s apparent indigency warrants a reduction in the award of costs. See, e.g., D’Attore v. City of N.Y., 201.4 WL 173482 at *2. Accordingly, this Court reduces the award of costs from $1,094.88 to $750.00.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION & ORDER

ANDREW J. PECK, United States Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Abraham Cucuta filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), which Chief Judge Preska granted on October 15, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1: Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; Dkt. No. 20: Order Granting IFP Application.) On May 9, 2014, 25 F.Supp.3d 400, 2014 WL 1876529, this Court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed this lawsuit. {See Dkt. No. 80: Opinion & Order.) On June 19, 2014, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), the Clerk of Court entered a Bill of Costs in favor of defendants totaling $1,094.88, $983.20 of which was attributable to deposition transcripts. (Dkt. No. 82: Bill of Costs.) On June 24, 2014, Cucuta filed a letter arguing that his IFP status relieves him of responsibility for the costs identified in the Bill of Costs. (Dkt. No. 83: 6/24/14 Cucuta Letter.)

Contrary to Cucuta’s assertion, the IFP statute and caselaw make clear that Cucuta’s in forma pauperis status does not automatically excuse him from paying costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(f)(2)(A) (“If the judgment against a prisoner includes the payment of costs under this subsection, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full amount of the costs ordered.”); see, e.g., D’Attore v. City of N.Y., 10 Civ. 6646, 2014 WL 173482 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2014) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(f) expressly permits costs to be taxed against indigent prisoners.... ”); McMunn v. Mem’l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 97 Civ. 5857, 2003 WL 22910079 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2003) (“[C]osts may be awarded against a losing party even if that party would have diffi[422]*422culty in paying the judgment and even if the party appeared in forma pauperis.”)-, Martin v. Ashcroft, 96 Civ. 7646, 2002 WL 31119434 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2002) (same).

Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and in this Court’s discretion, Cucuta’s apparent indigency warrants a reduction in the award of costs. See, e.g., D’Attore v. City of N.Y., 201.4 WL 173482 at *2. Accordingly, this Court reduces the award of costs from $1,094.88 to $750.00.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 F. Supp. 3d 420, 2014 WL 3734211, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cucuta-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack