Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 A.S. URMANCHEEV, Case No.: 3:22-cv-00762-CAB-MSB 14 Plaintiff, ORDER: 15 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 16 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS LEAVE TO ELECTRONICALLY ENFORCEMENT HEALTH SERVICES 17 FILE DOCUMENTS CORPS, et al., 18 Defendants. (2) DENYING MOTION TO WAIVE 19 PACER FEES 20 [Doc. No. 40] 21 22 23 On April 14, 2026, Plaintiff A.S. Urmancheev, proceeding pro se, filed a motion 24 requesting permission to file documents electronically and to waive the fees associated 25 with the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) system. [Doc. No. 40.] 26 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file documents 27 electronically and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to waive PACER fees. 28 /// 1 I. MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS ELECTRONICALLY 2 Generally, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court 3 has designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 4 5.4(a). “A pro se party seeking leave to electronically file documents must file a motion 5 and demonstrate the means to do so properly by stating their equipment and software 6 capabilities in addition to agreeing to follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF 7 Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual.” Office of the Clerk, United States 8 District Court for the Southern District of California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative 9 Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b) (2026). 10 The Court finds that Plaintiff has agreed to follow the rules regarding electronic 11 filing and has adequately demonstrated that he has the requisite hardware, software, and 12 technical capabilities to electronically file documents. [See Doc. No. 40 at 1–2.] 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file documents electronically. Plaintiff 14 SHALL REGISTER as a user with the Clerk’s Office and as a subscriber to PACER per 15 Section 2(b) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. 16 II. MOTION TO WAIVE PACER FEES 17 “Indigent individuals, litigants and other people who cannot afford to pay PACER 18 fees can request PACER fee exemptions from individual courts, upon a showing of cause.” 19 Options to Access Records if You Cannot Afford PACER Fees, Pub. Access to Ct. 20 Electronic Recs., https://pacer.uscourts.gov/my-account-billing/billing/options-access- 21 records-if-you-cannot-afford-pacer-fees. “A court will grant an exemption upon finding 22 that the requesting party has demonstrated that an exemption is necessary to avoid 23 unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information.” Id. 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff currently has IFP status,’ and he seeks an exemption from PACER fees. 2 ||[Doc. No. 40 at 1.] In his motion, Plaintiff states that he is ‘‘an indigent pro se litigant” but 3 || provides no other information about his current financial situation. [J/d. | 4 “Exemptions from PACER user fees are uncommon|[,]” and IFP status “alone does 5 || not support a request to waive PACER fees.” Katumbusi v. Gary, No. 2:14-CV-1534, 2014 6 || WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014). Further, a plaintiff is entitled to one free 7 || electronic copy of all documents filed electronically in his case. Luehring v. Los Angeles 8 || Cnaty., No. 2:21-CV-01426, 2021 WL 4533275, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021). For these 9 |}reasons and based on the current record, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has “been 10 || subject to an unreasonable burden in being charged fees,” or that he has “justified the need 11 || for a waiver of PACER fees at this time.” See Halousek v. Cal. Pub. Empls.’ Ret. Sys., No. 12 || 2:23-CV-839, 2024 WL 3012348, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 11, 2024). Accordingly, the Court 13 || DENIES Plaintiff's motion for waiver of PACER fees. 14 Itis SO ORDERED. 15 ||Dated: April 28, 2026 € Z 16 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 |} SSS 25 ' The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) when he filed his initial 26 ||Complaint. [Doc. No. 3 at 9.] Plaintiff appealed the Court’s dismissal of his Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend, and the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for the limited purpose of determining 27 || whether Plaintiff could keep his IFP status for his appeal. [Doc. No. 24.] On remand, the Court revoked 28 Plaintiff's IFP status. [Doc. No. 25 at 3.] After participating in the Ninth Circuit Mediation Program, the Circuit restored Plaintiff's IFP status. [Doc. No. 31 at 9.] YQ