United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Lamont Thomas, pro se.
R. Brosnahan and Jeffrey A. Timmerman, DAKOTA COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE.
April 29, 2015, Plaintiff DeSean Lamont Thomas filed an
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that, while in
custody at the Dakota County Jail, Defendants Pastor James
Bzoskie, Lieutenant Lawrence Heart, Lieutenant Benjamin
Verby, and Dakota County (“Defendants”) violated
Thomas's constitutional rights. (Compl., Apr. 29, 2015,
Docket No. 1; Second Am. Compl., Aug. 11, 2016, Docket No.
115.) On August 14, 2017, the Court granted summary judgement
for Defendants. (Mem. Op. & Order, Aug. 14, 2017, Docket
No. 204.) Thomas filed several post-trial motions, requests,
and other documents.
BILL OF COSTS
sought to recover $1, 731.75 in costs from Thomas under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). (Bill of Costs,
Aug. 16, 2017, Docket No. 206.) The Clerk allowed $1, 656.75
and entered a cost judgment accordingly. (Cost Judgment, Oct.
5, 2017, Docket No. 214.)
August 25, 2017 - after Defendants filed their Bill of Costs
but before the Clerk entered the cost judgment - Thomas filed
a “Request for Permission to Proceed & Refute Bill
of Costs.” (Request, Aug. 25, 2017, Docket No. 209.) In
it, Thomas states that the Defendants “voluntarily
wasted their resources on a tactical failure, which resulted
in a waste that the Plaintiff should not be responsible for,
” that he may still prevail on appeal, and that this
action was neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith.
(Id. at 1-2.) Thomas asks the Court for relief from
the Bill of Costs. (Id. at 2.)
Rule 54.3(c)(3) provides:
(3) Review of clerk's action.
(A) Within 14 days after the clerk taxes costs, a party may
file and serve a motion and supporting documents for review
of the clerk's action.
(B) Within 14 days after being served with the motion for
review, a party may file and serve a response.
(C) Unless the court orders otherwise, a party must not file
Minn. LR 54.3(c)(3). The Local Rules afford Thomas the
opportunity to seek review of the cost judgment. But Thomas
did not file a request for review within 14 days of entry of
the cost judgment, meaning that Thomas has waived his ability
to challenge the cost judgment under the Local Rules. The
Court will thus deny Thomas's request. Moreover,
Thomas's request - to the extent that it can be construed
as a request for review of the cost judgment - contains no
“supporting documents” that show why the Court
should deny Defendants the costs to which Rule 54(d) presumes
they are entitled. See Thompson v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 472 F.3d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 2006).
“To rebut the presumption that the prevailing party is
entitled to recover all of its costs, the district court must
provide a rationale for denying the prevailing party's
claim for costs. . . . A general statement of fairness is
insufficient, without more, to rebut the Rule 54(d)(1)
presumption for an award of costs to the prevailing