Garcia v. County of Napa

Background

The plaintiffs—Juan Garcia’s children, partner, and parents—filed five claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California law against Napa County and Sergeant David Ackman. The lawsuit followed Ackman’s fatal shooting of Garcia during a traffic stop.

In the earlier round of this case, the court ruled that Sergeant Ackman was protected by qualified immunity and granted defendants summary judgment on the federal claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. After judgment was entered, defendants filed a bill of costs seeking $25,115.39. The plaintiffs objected and then moved for review of the taxation of costs, asking the court to use its discretion to deny defendants any costs.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) generally creates a presumption that the prevailing party should receive litigation costs other than attorney’s fees. But a district court may deny costs if it gives reasons for doing so. The court considered the plaintiffs’ financial resources, the financial disparity between the parties, the possible chilling effect on future civil-rights lawsuits, the closeness and difficulty of the issues, and the case’s substantial public importance.

Reasons for denying costs

The court found that the plaintiffs’ limited financial resources supported denying costs. Eva Lopez Hernandez stated that Garcia had been the family’s largest wage earner, that the family’s income was roughly enough to cover its monthly expenses, and that paying defendants’ costs would create a significant burden. The court also noted that Napa County was a public entity with substantially greater resources than the plaintiffs. The court found that the plaintiffs did not need to be completely without resources for an award of costs to be inequitable.

The court also found a potential chilling effect on future civil-rights litigation. It reasoned that imposing costs of $11,750 on a working family challenging the use of deadly force against a loved one could discourage other people with limited means from asserting their rights.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that their success at summary judgment showed that the case was not close or difficult. It found that the case involved a challenging application of the second part of qualified immunity and interpretation of a new Ninth Circuit decision. The court had not reached the first part of the qualified-immunity analysis and had noted at the summary-judgment hearing that summary judgment likely would have been denied if it reached the merits. Finally, the court found that the fatal shooting by a police officer during a traffic stop raised issues of substantial public importance.

Disposition

The court found substantial and compelling reasons to exercise its discretion to deny costs. It granted the plaintiffs’ motion for review of taxation of costs and denied defendants’ request for costs in its entirety.