Eighth Circuit Rules Plaintiff Must Cover Expert Costs
by Michael Dean Thompson
A group of patients confined within the Minnesota Sex Offender Program under the Minnesota Civil Commitment and Treatment Act brought a class action lawsuit against state officials for failing to provide treatment and unconstitutional conditions of confinement. In the process, they agreed with the defendants on the names of four expert witnesses.
Eventually, the case was decided against them and the district court assigned all the costs of the expert witnesses to the defendants. That decision was appealed by the defendants to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit which, with Chief Judge Steven Colloton writing for the majority, adjusted the proportions so that the plaintiffs are now liable for $366,491.96, “to be assessed against the named plaintiffs jointly and severally.”
The case was filed as a class action pro se lawsuit. Based on financial information provided by the patients, the Court allowed them to proceed in forma pauperis. Counsel subsequently agreed to represent them at the request of the Minnesota Federal Bar Association’s Pro Se Project.
The plaintiffs then asked to have expert witnesses appointed to assist them in their claims. In December 2013, the Court appointed four expert witnesses from a list of names both sides nominated. Later that month, the plaintiffs and defendants met to determine how the expert service costs would be paid. They agreed to a 50/50 split of costs. The district court, however, ordered without explanation that the initial costs would be assigned to the defendants.
After ten years of litigation, the defendants won, resulting in just over $730,000 of fees for the experts. As a result, the defendants filed a bill for more than $800,000, to which the patients objected.
The district court cited the patients’ indigence when it decided to require all costs be paid by the defendants. In doing so, it ignored the fact that such costs are normally not assigned to the prevailing parties. It also ignored the agreement regarding how costs would be shared. The district court added that the patients “will likely not be able to pay those costs in the future, they have brought this action in good faith, the case raised issues of great public importance, the case was vigorously litigated, the issues were difficult and close, and imposing the fees could have a chilling effect on future litigants.”
The Eighth Circuit noticed that just two years after beginning the case in forma pauperis the patients had been willing to split the costs without any explanation as to how their financial position might have changed. Although Congress has limited the ability to apply the prevalent party’s attorney fees, there are no similar rules for “relieving a losing civil-rights litigant of the burden of bearing the costs of litigation.” Regarding the agreement, the Eighth Circuit went on to say, “The district court did not consider this acknowledged ability to pay, and the plaintiffs presented no evidence to establish why the court should not rely on the plaintiffs’ previous offer.”
The patients were held to the agreement. “If it turns out that the judgment is not collectible, then so be it, but the prevailing parties are entitled to the judgment under the governing rule on this record.” See: Karsjens v. Gandhi, 164 F.4th 662 (8th Cir. 2026).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Karsjens v. Gandhi
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 164 F.4th 662 (8th Cir. 2026) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |