Portillo v. Jennifer Webb al
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:16-cv-04731
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Portillo v. Webb, Judge Caproni vacated $3,596.06 in costs because Portillo was indigent and had pursued claims without obvious bad faith.
Jamie Portillo was relieved of the $3,596.06 cost award. Jennifer Webb, Manuel Aldir, and Lycha Gasanov were not awarded costs, and the Clerk’s taxation of costs was vacated.
What happened
In Portillo v. Webb, Aldir, and Gasanov, an incarcerated plaintiff sued correctional officers over excessive force and failure to intervene. A jury found for the defendants, and the Clerk entered a bill of costs requiring Portillo to pay $3,596.06.
Portillo asked the court to cancel the costs, citing his indigency and the good-faith basis for his claims. The court reviewed his prison account statements, which showed very limited funds and earnings of less than $3 per week. The court also noted that his claims had survived summary judgment and proceeded to trial, providing no basis to find that he had acted in bad faith.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted Portillo’s motion to vacate the taxation of costs. She vacated the Clerk’s bill of costs and ordered that no costs be awarded to the defendants.
The detailed version
- Portillo v. Jennifer Webb al · No. 1:16-cv-04731
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Jamie Portillo, who was incarcerated at Franklin Correctional Facility, sued correctional officers Jennifer Webb, Manuel Aldir, and Lycha Gasanov under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He claimed excessive force and failure to intervene. After a two-day jury trial on July 30 and August 1, 2023, the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.
The defendants then sought litigation costs. The Clerk entered a Bill of Costs for $3,596.06. Portillo, who had filed the case without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees based on indigency, moved to vacate the taxation of costs. He submitted prison-account statements showing that his balance had declined from $1,707.99 in June 2016 to $69.21 after trial, and that he earned less than $3 per week.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally allows costs to the prevailing party, but the district court has discretion to review, adjust, or deny a costs award. The losing party bears the burden of showing why costs should not be imposed. The court explained that indigency, financial hardship, and the plaintiff’s good faith may support denying costs when awarding them would be inequitable.
The court found that Portillo had proved his indigency through his account statements. Requiring him to pay $3,596.06 would cause substantial financial hardship and would be virtually impossible for him. The court also found no basis to conclude that he brought his claims in bad faith. Although it described some claims as questionable, his excessive-force and failure-to-intervene claims had survived summary judgment and proceeded to a jury trial.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni granted Portillo’s motion to vacate the taxation of costs. The court vacated the Taxation of Costs at Dkt. 236, ordered that no costs be awarded to the defendants, and directed the Clerk to terminate the open motion at Dkt. 237.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.