Background

• Plaintiff Rosalina Calonge sued the City of San Jose and Officer Edward Carboni under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after her son was shot and killed during an encounter with San Jose police.
• Defendants won on summary judgment, becoming the prevailing parties, and sought to recover litigation costs under Rule 54(d)(1).
• Calonge moved to review the clerk’s taxation of costs, arguing her limited finances and the public importance of the case justify denying costs.
• The court applied the Ninth Circuit framework for denying costs (presumption in favor of the prevailing party but with discretion to refuse), including factors identified in Escriba.
• The court credited Calonge’s declaration describing constrained finances and reliance on church assistance, and found the case implicated important civil‑rights and police‑use‑of‑force issues involving mental health.
• The court granted Calonge’s motion and declined to award costs, citing public importance, risk of chilling similar claims, and plaintiff’s limited resources.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Ass’n of Mexican‑Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572 (2000) (establishes presumption in favor of awarding costs but acknowledges district court discretion to deny)
• Stanley v. Univ. of S. California, 178 F.3d 1069 (1999) (placing burden on losing party to show why costs should not be awarded; indigency is a proper consideration)
• Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932 (2003) (requires specific, affirmative reasons when a court refuses to award costs)
• Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (2014) (identifies non‑exhaustive factors to deny costs, including public importance, closeness of issues, chilling effect, indigency, and economic disparity)
• Draper v. Rosario, 836 F.3d 1072 (2016) (recognizes that imposing costs can chill civil‑rights litigation)
• Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (2001) (contextual authority on police use of force and mental‑health interactions)