Michael R. Green v. Heather Shirley, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL R. GREEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00505-KES-EPG (PC) 11 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDING THAT DEFENDANTS 12 v. BE DENIED COSTS 13 HEATHER SHIRLEY, et al., (ECF No. 66) 14 Defendants. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiff Michael R. Green is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 18 this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case initially proceeded on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment conditions of confinements claim against Defendants Shirley, 19 Cronjager, and DeGough, stemming from Plaintiff’s allegations that the levels of 20 trichloropropane in the water at Wasco State Prison (WSP) were unsafe for consumption. 21 However, after reviewing the parties’ dispositive motions, the Court issued findings and 22 recommendations (ECF No. 63) to deny Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF 23 No. 47) and to grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52). The District 24 Judge adopted those findings and recommendations on December 29, 2025 (ECF No. 64), and 25 entered judgment (ECF No. 65) in Defendants’ favor the same day. 26 Now before the Court are Defendants’ bill of costs, filed on January 7, 2026, requesting 27 $1,016.95 for deposition-related expenses. (ECF No. 66). Plaintiff objected to the bill of costs on 28 1 January 30, 2026. (ECF No. 68). 2 For the reasons given below, the Court will recommend that Defendants be denied costs. 3 II. ANALYSIS 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) provides as follows: “Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney’s fees--should be 5 allowed to the prevailing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Although the Ninth Circuit has 6 interpreted this “as creating a presumption for awarding costs to prevailing parties,” the Rule 7 “also vests in the district court discretion to refuse to award costs.” Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 8 1072, 1087 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In determining 9 whether to exercise such discretion, the Ninth Circuit has directed courts to consider a non- 10 exhaustive list of factors: “(1) the substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and 11 difficulty of the issues in the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the 12 plaintiff’s limited financial resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties.” Id. 13 Importantly, “a losing party need not demonstrate that all five factors weigh against imposing 14 costs.” Id. 15 As for the first factor—the substantial public importance of the case—[i]ndividual Eighth 16 Amendment cases are important for safeguarding the rights and safety of prisoners,” Id. at 1088. 17 In this case, although ultimately unsuccessful, Plaintiff raised important issues about the safety of 18 the water at WSP, which weighs against awarding costs to Defendants. 19 As for the second factor— the closeness and difficulty of the issues in the case—the Court 20 notes that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was resolved, in part, based on Plaintiff’s 21 lack of expert opinion to rebut Defendants’ expert evidence regarding the safety of WSP’s water. 22 (See ECF No. 63, pp. 9-18). Accordingly, even though Plaintiff lost this case, there is no 23 indication that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in bad faith. See Murray v. Warden, No. 2:19-CV-2114- DAD-AC, 2023 WL 3168368, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2023), report and recommendation 24 adopted, 2023 WL 5155800 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2023) (recommending denial of costs where 25 Plaintiff lost motion for summary judgment, in part, because “[t]here [was] no evidence of bad 26 faith or misconduct in bringing this lawsuit”). 27 As for the third factor—the chilling effect on future similar actions—an award of 28 1 $1,016.95 in costs “could chill similar lawsuits challenging Eighth Amendment violations in jails 2 and prisons.” Draper, 836 F.3d at 1088. This factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff. 3 Lastly, the fourth and fifth factors— the plaintiff’s limited financial resources and the 4 economic disparity between the parties—weigh in Plaintiff’s favor. When Plaintiff initiated this case, he was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, based in part, on his trust fund statement 5 showing his last available balance at $0.05. (ECF No. 5, p. 3; ECF No. 8). While Plaintiff’s 6 balance varied during the period reflected in the statement, it never exceeded $380.12, and 7 frequently was much less, e.g., around $50 to $80. (ECF No. 5). Further, Plaintiff’s continued 8 incarceration makes it unlikely that his economic circumstances will improve. 9 In contrast, Defendants are represented by the California Office of the Attorney General. 10 (See ECF No. 15). As the Ninth Circuit has noted, “[t]here is no comparison between [an inmate 11 plaintiff’s] limited resources and those of the state of California, which bore the defense costs.” 12 Draper, 836 F.3d at 1089. 13 In short, considering all the relevant circumstances in this case, the Court will recommend 14 that Defendants be denied costs. Murray, 2023 WL 3168368, at *1 (recommending denial of 15 $1,519.78 in costs associated with taking plaintiff’s deposition although court granted summary 16 judgment to defendant). 17 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18 For the reasons given above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendants be denied costs. 19 (ECF No. 66). 20 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 21 Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within 22 thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party 23 may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Any objections shall be limited to no more than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits. Such a document should be 24 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the 25 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 ] The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result 2 | inthe waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 3 | Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 4 ; IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ February 2, 2026 [Je heey — 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28