Steve Wilheim v. Sandar Aung

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02323
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STEVE WILHEIM, No. 2:22-cv-02323 DJC SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 SANDAR AUNG, 14 Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis in this 17 closed civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the operative first amended 18 complaint on June 26, 2023, alleging an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against 19 defendant Dr. Aung. ECF No. 8. On September 22, 2025, District Judge Calabretta adopted the 20 undersigned’s recommendations that defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 46) be 21 granted and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement (ECF No. 41) be denied. ECF No. 61. 22 Judgement was entered the same day, and the case was closed. ECF No. 62. 23 Currently pending before the undersigned is defendant Aung’s bill of costs in the amount 24 of $1,393.00. ECF No. 63. Judge Calabretta referred the matter to the undersigned pursuant to 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and Local Rule 292. ECF No. 64. Plaintiff has filed objections. ECF No. 69. 26 I. Standards Governing a Bill of Costs 27 Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure creates a rebuttable presumption 28 that costs, other than attorney’s fees, should be awarded to the prevailing party. However, a 1 | district court has the discretion to refuse an award of costs. See Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators 2 | v. California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). If the court declines to award costs to the 3 || prevailing party, it “must specify reasons for its refusal to award costs.” Mexican-Am. Educators, 4 | 231 F.3d at 591 (citation omitted). Reasons to refuse to award costs include “the losing party’s 5 || limited financial resources; misconduct on the part of the prevailing party; the importance of the 6 || issues; the importance and complexity of the issues; the merit of the plaintiffs case, even if the 7 || plaintiff loses; and the chilling effect on future civil rights litigants of imposing high costs.” Save 8 | Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted); see 9 || also National Org. for Women v. Bank of Cal., 680 F.2d 1291, 1291 (9th Cir. 1982) (upholding 10 | the refusal to award costs based on the losing party’s limited financial resources); Stanley v. 11 | Univ. of Southern California, 178 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing the chilling effect 12 | that awarding costs against a prisoner in a civil rights lawsuit has). 13 I. Analysis 14 Based on plaintiffs limited financial resources as a prisoner who proceeded in forma 15 | pauperis, the possibility that imposing costs against him would have a chilling effect on prisoner 16 | civil rights lawsuits, and the fact that plaintiff's first amended complaint was not frivolous— 17 || particularly considering the parties’ agreement on the objective seriousness of plaintiffs kidney 18 | ailments in their respective summary-judgment motions—the court will deny defendant Aung’s 19 || request to recover costs. In these circumstances, awarding costs against plaintiff would be 20 | inequitable. See Villareal v. Cnty. of Fresno, No. 1:15-cv-1410 ADA EPG PC, 2022 WL 21 | 17630790, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2022) (denying defendant’s bill of costs for $1,198.40 22 | against indigent, incarcerated plaintiff who proceeded on Eighth Amendment claims, holding that 23 || the “potential chilling effect of being taxed with costs upon defeat cannot be ignored.”). 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Aung’s bill of costs (ECF No. 25 || 63) 1s denied. 26 || DATED: December 22, 2025 mda 27 SEAN C. RIORDAN 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE