Walls v. Jeffreys et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
NIRIN WALLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LANA NALEWAJKA, DR. VIPIN
SHAH, and DR. JODI PELEGRIN,
Defendants.
Case No. 21-CV-01369-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Nirin Walls, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that his Eight
Amendment rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Centralia Correctional
Center. (Doc. 2). Specifically, he alleged that all Defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to his serious medical condition and that Defendants Lana Nalewajka
and Dr. Jodi Pelegrin failed to impose a medical hold on Walls, resulting in his
transfer to another facility and delayed medical care. (See Doc. 233). The Court
ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. (Id.). Now pending
before the Court is Defendants Dr. Vipin Shah and Dr. Pelegrin’s Bill of Costs, (Doc.
235), to which Walls objects, (Doc. 242). For the following reasons, the Bill of Costs is
DENIED.
Defendants’ Bill of Costs seeks reimbursement of $1,352.65 for costs incurred
creating a transcript for this case. (Doc. 235). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Case 3:21-cv-01369-SPM Document 246 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
Procedure 54(d)(1), “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides
otherwise, costs – other than attorney's fees – should be allowed to the prevailing
party.” Ordinarily the Clerk of Court taxes costs in favor of the prevailing party on
14 days’ notice. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1). Those costs may include:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed and electronically
recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees
and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for
exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where
the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees
under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed
experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and
costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.
28 U.S.C. § 1920.
The Court presumes that a prevailing party is entitled to costs as a matter of
course but has the discretion to deny or reduce costs where warranted – including the
indigency of the non-prevailing party. Krocka v. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507, 518
(7th Cir. 2000); Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441–42
(1987). To deny a bill of costs on the grounds of indigency, “the district court must
make a threshold factual finding that the losing party is ‘incapable of paying the
court-imposed costs at this time or in the future.’” Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d
631, 635 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting McGill v. Faulkner, 18 F.3d 456, 459 (7th Cir. 1994)).
The losing party carries the burden of providing the court with “sufficient
documentation to support such a finding.” Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635 (internal
quotations omitted). “This documentation should include evidence in the form of an
affidavit or other documentary evidence of both income and assets, as well as a
schedule of expenses.” Id. If the court makes a threshold finding of indigence, it must
Case 3:21-cv-01369-SPM Document 246 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
then consider “the amount of costs, the good faith of the losing party, and the
closeness and difficulty of the issues raised by a case.” Id. at 635–36.
In this case, Walls moved to proceed in forma pauperis before this Court on
November 1, 2021, and he included his Trust Fund statement from April 1, 2021, to
October 1, 2021. (Doc. 2). After receiving Walls’ Trust Fund statement, the Court
allowed Walls to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 9). Recently, as part of his motion
to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Walls submitted an affidavit about his assets
as well as his Trust Fund statement from August 25, 2025, through February 25,
2026, showing that he has only $8.68 in assets. (Doc. 243). Although Walls said that
he could receive settlements in other lawsuits, (Doc. 243), the Court finds that such
settlements are highly speculative. Based on Walls’ current assets and ongoing
incarceration, the Court finds that Walls is indigent and incapable of paying the
requested costs now or in the future.
Although Walls was unsuccessful on his claims against Defendants, his claims
were not frivolous, and he had a good faith basis for prosecuting his lawsuit.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Bill of Costs, (Doc. 235), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 3, 2026
/s/ Stephen P. McGlynn_
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge
Case 3:21-cv-01369-SPM Document 246 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>