Luna v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
- Edward Chen
- 3:20-cv-08097
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Luna v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Judge Chen granted appeal fee-waiver and counsel requests but denied defendants’ $4,335.40 costs bill.
Maria C. Luna received permission to appeal without paying the filing fee and was granted appointed counsel; defendants’ request for $4,335.40 in costs was denied.
What happened
In Maria C. Luna v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Luna brought an employment discrimination suit against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California Medical Facility in Vacaville. The court had previously granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and defendants then sought $4,335.40 in costs.
Luna appealed and asked to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee and for appointed counsel. The court found that her expenses exceeded her income, her income came from child support and disability payments, and her appeal was made in good faith and was not plainly frivolous.
The court granted Luna’s request to proceed without paying the appeal fee and granted her motion for appointed counsel. It denied defendants’ bill of costs because Luna was unemployed, lacked sufficient resources to pay, and faced an economic disadvantage compared with defendants. Judge Chen’s order resolved these motions and the bill of costs.
The detailed version
- Luna v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · No. 3:20-cv-08097
- Edward Chen
- June 15, 2022
Background
Maria C. Luna brought an employment discrimination lawsuit against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California Medical Facility in Vacaville. On April 28, 2022, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendants then submitted a bill of costs seeking $4,335.40. Luna filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and asked to proceed on appeal without paying the filing fee and to have counsel appointed.
Appeal without paying the filing fee
The court reviewed Luna’s financial information. It found that her expenses substantially exceeded her income and that her only sources of income were child support and disability payments. The court therefore found that she met the financial eligibility requirement to proceed without paying the appeal fee.
The court also considered whether the appeal was taken in good faith. It found that Luna’s appeal was made in good faith and that her claim was not plainly frivolous. The court granted Luna’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal.
Appointment of counsel
The court explained that appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) depends on a plaintiff’s eligibility to proceed without paying fees. The court noted that it had previously appointed pro bono counsel for Luna and that she was eligible to proceed without paying fees. The court granted Luna’s motion to appoint counsel.
Bill of costs
Defendants sought $4,335.40 in costs, and Luna objected. The court recognized that costs other than attorney’s fees are generally available to a prevailing party, but that the district court has discretion to refuse them. The court considered Luna’s limited financial resources and the economic disparity between the parties. It stated that Luna was unemployed and lacked sufficient resources to pay the bill of costs. The court denied defendants’ bill of costs.
Disposition
The court granted Luna’s application to proceed without paying the appeal fee, granted her motion to appoint counsel, and denied defendants’ bill of costs. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 50, 52, and 53. Judge Edward M. Chen signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.