The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matter before the Court is the motion to review the Order Taxing Costs, filed by Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 237).
On March 5, 2007, based upon a jury verdict returned on February 28, 2007, the Court entered Judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. (Doc. # 222).
On March 19, 2007, Defendant filed a Notice of Application to Clerk to Tax Costs. (Doc. # 223).
On March 22, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Judgment. (Doc. # 225). On August 20, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate affirming the Judgment of this Court. (Doc. # 234).
On September 24, 2009, the Clerk of the Court issued the Order Taxing Costs in favor of Defendant in the amount of $4,509.18. (Doc. # 235). The Order Taxing Costs states: "Counsels' attention is called to Local Rule 54.1.h which provides in part that a motion to re-tax by any party, in accordance with Rule 54(d), F.R.Civ.P. and Local Rule 7.1, shall be served and filed within five (5) days after receipt of the Order Taxing Costs." (Doc. # 235 at 2). The docket reflects that a copy of the Order Taxing Costs was served on Plaintiff via U.S. Mail.
On February 22, 2010, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff. (Doc. # 237). In the letter, Plaintiff states:
I am requesting that the 'Bill of Cost' be denied ... because I am an indigent prisoner and cannot afford to pay the 'Bill of Cost' and 'Federal Filing Fees.' ... Everytime my family and friends send me money for hygiene and canteen the Prison Inmate Trust Account Office takes all of it for the 'Bill of Cost' and 'Federal Filing Fees.' Would you please refuse and deny the 'Bill of Cost' as I cannot afford it. (Doc. # 237 at 1).
On March 9, 2010, the Court issued an Order stating that Plaintiff's February 22, 2010 letter is construed as a motion to review the Order Taxing Costs. (Doc. # 238).
On March 22, 2010, Defendant filed an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to review the Order Taxing Costs. (Doc. # 239). Defendant contends:
Williams' motion is untimely. He has waived any ability to contest the award of costs in this case. Williams has a long, protracted history of prisoner civil rights litigation. The costs awarded in this case represent only a small fraction of the expenses California taxpayers have borne to respond to Williams' many lawsuits, and that fact, regardless of his indigency, warrants keeping the cost award in place. Williams is gaming the courts, and did not disclose to this Court his recent $10,000 settlement, which is the real money he is seeking to protect from the costs and fees he has incurred from his litigation over the years. (Doc. # 239 at 5). Defendant attached a copy of a settlement agreement related to a prisoner civil rights case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Williams v. Ross, Case No. C04-2409. (Doc. # 239, Ex. 1). The settlement agreement, signed by the defendants in the Northern District action on February 17 and 18, 2010, and signed by Plaintiff Gerry Williams on March 18, 2010, provides that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall pay Plaintiff $10,000 in exchange for Plaintiff voluntarily dismissing the Northern District action with prejudice. Defendant also attached copies of the docket sheets from six prisoner civil rights cases filed by Plaintiff in California federal district courts. (Doc. # 239, Exs. A-F).
On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of his motion to review the Order Taxing Costs. (Doc. # 242). Plaintiff contends that his February 22, 2010 motion was timely because Plaintiff did not receive notice of the Order Taxing Costs until January 10, 2010. (Doc. # 242 at 1-2). Plaintiff contends that "each of the civil claims Plaintiff filed in the pas[t] and present are meritorious," although in the present case, "Plaintiff just didn't have the skills and experience to prove his case." (Doc. # 242 at 2-3). Plaintiff contends that he did not inform the Court of the settlement in his motion to review the ...