Christopher Jones v. E. McDaniel

Good Law
607 F. App'x 710
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 201511-15579California436 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Christopher Jones appeals the district court’s partial denial of his requested bill of costs, and the district court’s denial of his “Emergency Motion for Order” in which he asked the district court to instruct the Nevada Department of Corrections (DOC) to deposit the proceeds from the offer of judgment in this case into his Trust 2 inmate account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

The DOC does not dispute that it was served with Jones’s proposed bill of costs by mail, nor does it argue that it lacked notice of the bill of costs. Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion when it concluded that the “likely reason” for the DOC’s failure to respond within 14 days of service was “lack of notice regarding the bill of costs.” See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir.2009). Because the DOC’s failure to object to the cost bill constitutes consent to the award of all costs included therein, see D. Nev. Local R. 54-13, and the district court did not indicate that there were any other reasons why the “interests of justice” required the district court to allow DOC to make an untimely filing to object to the bill of costs, D.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.