{"id":404,"date":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=404"},"modified":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","slug":"bryant-berkeley-bill-of-costs-civil-rights-chilling-effect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=404","title":{"rendered":"Bryant v. City of Berkeley \u2014 N.D. Cal. denies costs to prevailing police defendants in excessive-force shooting case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Vincent Bryant, et al. v. City of Berkeley, et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-06<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:21-cv-08169<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1); bill of costs; civil rights chilling effect; Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms<\/em>; Association of Mexican-American Educators<\/em>; excessive force; indigent plaintiff<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Vincent Bryant sued the City of Berkeley and police officers Madison Albrandt, Samantha Speelman, and Kevin Kleppe under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 and California law, alleging that the officers violated his constitutional rights when they shot him in the face during an interaction. He was unhoused at the time of the incident. After litigation, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.<\/p>\n

Defendants then filed a bill of costs as the prevailing parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Bryant \u2014 through his guardian ad litem (Bryant has been in a vegetative state from which he is not expected to recover since March 2023) \u2014 objected. After the parties briefed, defendants revised the request and asked for service-of-process, deposition, and expert costs. Bryant continued to litigate the underlying state-law claims in state court.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Magistrate Judge Alex G. Tse exercised the court\u2019s discretion under Rule 54(d)(1) and declined to award any costs.<\/p>\n

While Rule 54(d)(1) creates a presumption that costs go to the prevailing party, the Ninth Circuit en banc decision Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California<\/em> and Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms<\/em> recognize five appropriate reasons for denying costs: substantial public importance, closeness and difficulty of the issues, chilling effect on similar future actions, the plaintiff\u2019s limited financial resources, and economic disparity between the parties. All five favored Bryant.<\/p>\n

On public importance, Northern District precedent treats police-shooting excessive-force cases as quintessential cases of substantial public importance. Garcia v. County of Napa<\/em> and Lopez v. Nguyen<\/em> are representative.<\/p>\n

On chilling effect, taxing costs against a civil-rights plaintiff of modest means risks deterring future plaintiffs from testing the boundaries of constitutional rights, citing Stanley v. University of Southern California<\/em>\u2019s reminder that civil-rights litigation has driven historic legal progress. The defendants\u2019 characterization of the costs as \u201cmodest\u201d missed that Bryant cannot work and likely never will be able to. Their argument that Bryant\u2019s parallel state-court litigation showed no chilling effect was speculative.<\/p>\n

On limited financial resources, Bryant has been in a vegetative state since March 2023, was unhoused at the time of the incident, and has no realistic earning capacity. The Ninth Circuit holds that it is an abuse of discretion to award costs against a losing plaintiff without considering financial resources, citing Darensburg v. Metropolitan Transportation Commission<\/em>.<\/p>\n

On economic disparity, Berkeley is a public entity with vastly greater resources than an indigent individual plaintiff, again following Hunter v. City and County of San Francisco<\/em> and Godoy v. County of Sonoma<\/em>.<\/p>\n

On closeness and difficulty, the case was rigorously litigated, required discovery rulings, and reached only summary judgment. Jefferson v. City of Fremont<\/em> and Darensburg<\/em> teach that summary-judgment dispositions can still involve close and difficult issues. The court therefore declined to award any costs.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n