Henneberry v. City of Newark
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:13-cv-05238
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Henneberry v. City of Newark, Judge Hixson denied defendants’ $6,784.15 cost request because plaintiff was indigent and costs could chill civil-rights lawsuits.
John Patrick Henneberry was excused from paying the $6,784.15 in costs requested by defendants Karl Fredstrom and the City of Newark.
What happened
In Henneberry v. City of Newark, defendants Karl Fredstrom and the City of Newark asked for $6,784.15 in costs after judgment was entered in their favor. John Patrick Henneberry objected, arguing that he was indigent and that the case involved important constitutional rights.
The court explained that federal rules generally favor awarding costs to the party that wins, but allow a judge to refuse them for appropriate reasons. Henneberry showed that he was indigent, received disability income and food stamps, and had already been allowed to waive litigation fees.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ruled that charging the costs could cause serious financial hardship and discourage people with limited means from bringing similar civil-rights cases. The court therefore denied the defendants’ request for costs and excused Henneberry from paying them.
The detailed version
- Henneberry v. City of Newark · No. 3:13-cv-05238
- Thomas Hixson
- May 21, 2024
Background
After judgment was entered in their favor, Karl Fredstrom and the City of Newark submitted a bill of costs totaling $6,784.15. John Patrick Henneberry objected. He did not dispute that the defendants were the prevailing parties; instead, he asked the court to deny the costs because he was indigent and because the case involved important constitutional rights.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally creates a presumption that the prevailing party will receive costs other than attorney’s fees. The district court nevertheless has discretion to refuse an award. The opinion identifies limited financial resources, the public importance of the case, and the possibility that an award could discourage similar lawsuits as reasons that may support denying costs.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Henneberry had established that he was indigent. The opinion states that he received disability income and food stamps from the County, and that the court had already determined that he was eligible to have his litigation fees waived. The court concluded that this factor favored disallowing costs.
The court also found that awarding costs could discourage future civil-rights litigation. Henneberry’s case involved constitutional claims related to his arrest and incarceration, including claims under the First and Fourth Amendments. The court reasoned that imposing costs on plaintiffs with limited financial resources in cases involving important civil rights could discourage similarly situated people from bringing lawsuits.
Disposition
The court exercised its discretion to excuse Henneberry’s obligation to pay the defendants’ requested costs. The order therefore denied the defendants’ request for the $6,784.15 cost award.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.