# Gaddis v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 12, 2004 · 381 F.3d 444

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414328

## Case

- **Full name:** Carlton GADDIS and Latanza Gaddis, Individually and as Next Friend of Courtlin Gaddis, a Minor; Courtlin Gaddis, a Minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Et Al., Defendants, United States of America, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 12, 2004
- **Citations:** 381 F.3d 444; 2004 WL 1801198
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by King
- **Judges:** King, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Wiener, Barksdale, Garza, Demoss, Benavides, Stewart, Dennis, Clement, Prado, Pickering
- **Cited by:** 55 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414328

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a guardian ad litem is an officer of the court whose role is to assist the court
- noting, but not adopting, the Ninth Circuit’s position that private process servers’ fees are taxable costs under Section 1920(1)
- acknowledging that Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (a)(1) apply to FTCA disputes

## Opinion text

*460 KING, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. For the reasons cogently explained in Parts II.A-B and III of Judge Smith’s dissenting opinion, I would hold that guardian ad litem fees cannot be taxed as costs of court under the authority of Rule 54(d) because they are not enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920 . See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 , 107 S.Ct. 2494 , 96 L.Ed.2d 385 (1987). As to whether Rule 17 provides a separate source of authority, it could well be that the power to appoint a guardian ad litem carries with it an inherent power to order payment: out of the award, out of some res before the court, from the parents, or possibly from another private party before the court; the bounds of the district court’s authority in such practical matters are difficult to mark. But, whatever may be true as regards the liability of a private litigant, Rule 17 does not (and arguably could not) provide the clear and explicit waiver of sovereign immunity that would permit an order directed at the government, which is the issue in today’s case. See, e.g., United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 33-34 , 112 S.Ct. 1011 , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (a)(1).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414328. Public record. Not legal advice.