Vargas v. Lopez

Background

Ernesto Vargas, who is incarcerated at a California state prison, brought civil-rights claims under the First and Eighth Amendments against Correctional Officer L. Lopez-Ortega and Correctional Lieutenant C. Whitman. After a jury trial, the court entered judgment against Vargas and in favor of the defendants on October 29, 2025. The defendants then submitted a bill of costs seeking $12,910.53.

Vargas moved to strike the bill of costs. He did not dispute that the defendants were the prevailing parties and did not challenge any particular cost. Instead, he asked the court to exercise its discretion to deny the defendants’ costs altogether.

Procedural Issue

The defendants argued that Vargas waived his challenge because his motion did not state that his counsel had met and conferred, as required by Civil Local Rule 54-2(b). The court agreed that Vargas did not comply with that requirement but exercised its discretion to excuse the failure. The court noted that Vargas timely objected, his counsel later met with defense counsel after discovering the oversight, and a meet-and-confer would have been futile given Vargas’s position that he could not pay even a reduced bill of costs. The court therefore considered the substance of Vargas’s motion.

Reasons for Denying Costs

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally creates a presumption that allowable costs will be awarded to the prevailing party. The court explained, however, that district courts have discretion to refuse costs and must give reasons for doing so. The court considered the following factors:

1. Vargas’s financial resources. The court found that Vargas was indigent, unemployed while incarcerated, and had no other income or financial support. His application to proceed without paying the full filing fee showed no income or assets and only limited funds in his prison account. The court concluded that requiring him to pay nearly $13,000 would cause severe financial hardship and would likely render him indigent.

2. Public importance. The court found that the case involved constitutional claims concerning incarceration and therefore raised issues of substantial public importance, including the protection of incarcerated people and the ability to seek relief from grievances without retaliation. The jury’s finding that the defendants were not liable did not establish that prison operations were free of impropriety.

3. Chilling effect. The court found that imposing more than $12,000 in costs on an incarcerated person with no job, income, or financial support would discourage people in similar financial circumstances from bringing civil-rights cases involving important rights.

4. Economic disparity. The court found a significant disparity between Vargas and the defendants. The defendants’ costs were covered by the State of California, while Vargas had very limited resources. The court also noted that the individual defendants were employed while Vargas was not.

5. Closeness of the issues. The court found that Vargas’s claims were not frivolous and that the case was close. It relied in part on the court’s earlier twenty-nine-page order denying summary judgment and on the fact that jury deliberations lasted more than a full day. The court stated that the verdict for the defendants was far from guaranteed.

The defendants also argued that Vargas used wasteful discovery practices, made meritless bad-faith allegations, and took unnecessary depositions. The court found that the defendants had not shown litigation misconduct. The court noted that it had not imposed penalties, issued sanctions, or found that Vargas acted for an improper purpose.

Disposition

The court concluded that several factors weighed heavily against a large cost award and that severe injustice would result from imposing the requested costs. It granted Vargas’s Motion to Strike Costs. The opinion does not state that the court awarded the defendants any alternative amount of costs.