Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

June O. Carlson v. Scott Bukovic

March 18, 2011

JUNE O. CARLSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SCOTT BUKOVIC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In an opinion issued on September 2, 2010, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of this Court in favor of Defendants. Before the Court is Defendant Scott Bukovic's Petition for Additional Costs Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 39(e) ("Petition"), filed subsequent to the Seventh Circuit's opinion, which seeks taxable costs in the amount of $2261.25. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's bill of costs is granted.

I. BACKGROUND*fn1

Plaintiff June O. Carlson filed suit against Officer Scott Bukovic and the City of Darien, Illinois, alleging a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against Bukovic and a Monell claim*fn2 against the City for failure to train the officer, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff and her son, Paul Carlson, also filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., and Wal-Mart Realty Company, but the Court dismissed all of those claims on June 19 and October 1, 2007.

On June 9, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City on the Monell claim, but denied cross-motions for summary judgment on the excessive force claim. Carlson v. Bukovic, 2008 WL 2397682 (N.D. Ill. June 9, 2008). The excessive force claim proceeded to trial, and on June 18, 2009, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Bukovic.

Plaintiff appealed the Court's final determination of both the excessive force and the Monell claims. On September 2, 2010, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment. Carlson v. Bukovic, 621 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 2011 WL 30461 (U.S. March 7, 2011). In its final judgment, issued the same date, the Seventh Circuit stated that the case was affirmed "with costs, in accordance with the decision of this court entered on this date." (Pet. Ex. 1.) The Seventh Circuit issued its mandate on October 20, 2010, affirming the Court's judgment. (Doc. 250). On November 3, 2010, Defendant filed his Petition, seeking taxable costs in the amount of $2261.25.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 provides for the taxation of appellate costs in both the appellate and the district courts. Subpart (d) provides for taxation in the appellate court, but only if filed within 14 days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 39(d). Subpart (e), which provides for taxation in the district court, states:

The following costs on appeal are taxable in the district court for the benefit of the party entitled to costs under this rule:

(1) the preparation and transmission of the record;

(2) the reporter's transcript, if needed to determine the appeal;

(3) premiums paid for a supersedeas bond or other bond to preserve rights pending appeal; and

(4) the fee for filing the notice of appeal.

Fed. R. App. P. 39(e). Rule 39 does not set a time limit for filing a subpart (e) cost ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.