Hunter v. City and County of San Francisco, 3:11-cv-04911

Plaintiff Darrell Hunter sued the City and County of San Francisco and deputies for excessive force, Monell liability, Bane Act, and supervisory liability arising from an December 7, 2010 incident in the San Francisco Jail intake area.
Deputies gathered around Hunter; Deputy Burleson touched him, causing him to fall and be handcuffed; Hunter alleged head injury and use of excessive force.
The incident was videotaped but not documented as a use-of-force; an internal affairs investigation led to a Notice of Intent to Discipline Burleson, which Sheriff Hennessey ultimately did not act on.
Jury trial addressed individual liability and Monell claims; the jury found for Defendants on the individual liability phase, so Monell and damages were not presented to the jury.
Clerk initially taxed costs against Hunter in the amount of $14,635.81; Hunter moved for review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs.
The court grants Hunter’s motion and declines to award costs

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether costs should be awarded to the prevailing party under Rule 54(d).	Hunter argues costs should be denied due to indigence and potential chilling effect.	SF Defendants contend costs should follow the prevailing party’s victory.	Costs denied due to chilling effect and plaintiff’s limited resources.
Whether the financial resources of Hunter justify denying costs.	Hunter is indigent with welfare and food stamps; substantial debt; limited income.	Defendants note settlement funds and other income but do not dispute indigence.	Financial resources support denial of costs.
Whether economic disparity between parties justifies denying costs.	Disparity favors denial to avoid inequitable burden on plaintiff.	Disparity exists but should not automatically deny costs.	Economic disparity supports denial of costs.
Whether the case’s public importance and potential chilling effect support denying costs.	Case raised significant issues about handling of excessive force in SF Sheriff's Dept.	Not specifically addressing chilling effect in this case.	Significant public importance weighs against awarding costs.
Whether the case was close and litigated with merit warranting denial of costs.	Case was heavily disputed; merits argued; some success in pursuing Monell issues.	Defendants prevailed on the key liability issue.	Case was closely contested; supports denying costs.

Mexican–American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000) (court en banc; discretionary denial of costs in civil rights actions)
Stanley v. Univ. of S. California, 178 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 1999) (consider financial resources and chilling effect in cost decisions)