UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`No. 5:21-CV-59-BO
`
`ANTHONY VINES,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`MOUNT AIRE FARMS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ORDER
`
`This cause comes before the Court on plaintiff's motion to review and reverse the Clerk of
`
`Court's order taxing costs. Defendant has responded in opposition and the motion is ripe for ruling.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Plaintiff filed this case against his former employer, Mountaire Farms, alleging that he had
`
`been retaliated against in violation of the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination
`
`Act and wrongfully discharged in violation of public policy. [DE 1]. The Court granted summary
`
`judgment to Mountaire Farms [DE 42] and that decision was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and
`
`remanded for this Court to amend its judgment by the court of appeals. [DE 53].
`
`As the prevailing party, Mountaire Farms filed a bill of costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`54(d)(l) and the Clerk of Court truced $3,213.50 against plaintiff. [DE 61]. Plaintiff opposed the
`
`taxation of costs to the Clerk, but the Clerk held that he could not consider plaintiffs equitable
`
`arguments. Id. at 2. Plaintiff then filed the instant motion seeking review of the taxation of costs.
`
`See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(l) ("the court may review the clerk's action."); Local Civil Rule 54. l(c).
`
`Costs are awarded to the prevailing part as a matter of course. Cherry v. Champion Int 'l
`
`Corp., 186 F.3d 442, 446 (4th Cir. 1999).
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 65 Filed 09/26/24 Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`A district court has discretion to deny costs to the prevailing party. A court "must
`justify its decision to deny costs by articulating some good reason for doing so." A
`losing party's good faith is insufficient, standing alone, to justify denying costs to
`a prevailing party. Instead, a losing party's good faith is a "virtual prerequisite" to
`denying costs to a prevailing party. If a court finds that the losing party acted in
`good faith, the court may deny an award of costs when "there would be an element
`of injustice in a presumptive cost award." The factors that a court should consider
`to determine whether such an element of injustice would arise from an award of
`costs are: "(I) misconduct by the prevailing party; (2) the unsuccessful party's
`inability to pay the costs; (3) the excessiveness of the costs in a particular case; (4)
`the limited value of the prevailing party's victory; or (5) the closeness and difficulty
`of the issues decided."
`
`Petersen v. Midgett, No. 2:12-CV-60-D, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159339, at *6-7 (E.D.N.C. Nov.
`
`23, 2015) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Plaintiff offers two reasons for reversing the taxation of costs - first that he brought this
`
`complaint in good faith and second that he is unable to pay the costs. The Court finds no basis on
`
`which to conclude that plaintiff brought this complaint on anything other than his good faith belief
`
`that his employment was terminated in retaliation for filing an OSHA complaint. Though the costs
`
`awarded in this case are not excessive, plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated that he is unable to
`
`pay the costs. According to his declaration, plaintiff has not had any employment-based income
`
`since his employment with Mountaire Farms was terminated, his wife lost her job during the
`
`COVID-19 pandemic, and plaintiff has no agreement with a third party to pay costs. [DE 46-1 ].
`
`Plaintiffs hourly wage when he was employed by Mountaire Farms was $14.10 and his only
`
`valuable property is a 2006 Chevrolet Malibu. Plaintiff does not own his home, has no retirement
`
`account, and receives no government assistance. Id. Although plaintiff is represented by counsel,
`
`it appears to have been at no cost to plaintiff. See [DE 64 at 5].
`
`Based upon the foregoing, the Court determines that based upon plaintiffs financial
`
`circumstances it would be inequitable to require him to pay costs. Mountaire Farms' arguments to
`
`the contrary are unavailing. That a court is empowered to tax costs against a party who has been
`
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 65 Filed 09/26/24 Page 2 of 3
`
`2
`
`

`

`granted leave to appear informapauperis, see Flint v. Haynes, 651 F.2d 970,972 (4th Cir. 1981),
`
`does not limit a court's discretion to decline to tax costs based upon, inter alia, a party's inability
`
`to pay. Here, irrespective of plaintiff having been granted leave by the state court to proceed in
`
`forma pauperis, plaintiff has demonstrated that at this stage a $3,213.50 award against him would
`
`be, at bottom, unjust as he lacks any means with which to pay the costs. Mountaire Farms also
`
`contends that there is no requirement that costs which have been assessed must be collected, but
`
`that to not tax costs against plaintiff would incentivize plaintiff to file additional suits. This
`
`argument is unavailing as the record does not reflect that plaintiff is a frequent litigator. In sum,
`
`the Court is persuaded that it should exercise its discretion to reverse the taxation of costs against
`
`plaintiff in this case based upon his inability to pay.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion to review and reverse the Clerk
`
`of Court's order taxing costs [DE 62) is GRANTED. The order by the Clerk of Court granting
`
`defendant's motion for bill of costs is REVERSED. No costs are taxed against plaintiff.
`
`SO ORDERED, this±.!'{ day of September 2024.
`
`UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3
`Case 5:21-cv-00059-BO Document 65 Filed 09/26/24 Page 3 of 3
`
`