Southern v. City of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMY SOUTHERN, individually and No. 2:20-cv-01765-MCE-AC as successor-in-interest to Decedent 12 JEREMY SOUTHERN, 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, a municipal corporation; DRAKE WALKER, 16 individually and in his capacity as a City of Sacramento Police Officer; and 17 DOES 1–50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Plaintiff Jimmy Southern (“Plaintiff”) brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants City of Sacramento (the “City”) and police officer 22 Drake Walker (“Walker”) (collectively, “Defendants”) based on the fatal shooting of 23 Plaintiff’s brother, Jeremy Southern (“Decedent”). Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 15 24 (“SAC”). The Court previously granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings brought 25 by Defendants and entered judgment in their favor on Plaintiff’s second, third, and fifth 26 claims for relief. ECF Nos. 33, 38. More recently, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion 27 for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining claims for excessive force, negligence, 28 and battery after concluding that Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the instant claims. 1 | ECF No. 59. Presently before the Court is Defendants contested Bill of Costs, by which 2 | Defendants seek to recover $19,270.15 is litigation costs. ECF No. 63. 3 The Court declines to award costs. See Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 4 | 1247-48 (9th Cir. 2014) (“Appropriate reasons for denying costs include: (1) the 5 | substantial public importance of the case, (2) the closeness and difficulty of the issues in 6 | the case, (3) the chilling effect on future similar actions, (4) the plaintiff's limited financial 7 | resources, and (5) the economic disparity between the parties.”); Save Our Valley v. 8 | Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding “that the district court abused 9 | its discretion in rejecting a losing civil rights plaintiff's motion to deny costs to the 10 | defendant without considering: (1) the plaintiff's limited financial resources and (2) the 11 | chilling effect on future civil rights litigants of imposing high costs”). Each of the factors 12 | weighs against taxing costs against this civil rights plaintiff, who has limited financial 13 | resources when compared to Defendants. Moreover, taxing costs would likely chill 14 | future litigation in such difficult and important cases. Accordingly, the Court concludes 15 | that awarding Defendants their costs in this case would be inappropriate. 16 IT |S SO ORDERED. 17 18 | Dated: January 16, 2024 19 J Lat LEK ee NK 0 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28