Raiser v. Casserly
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Aaron Raiser, proceeding in forma pauperis, moved for an order allowing free access to the PACER system for research and docket viewing. The court denied the motion, finding that his existing electronic filing status provided reasonable access and that IFP status alone does not mandate the waiver of PACER fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application For Order Allowing PACER Access IFP“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not explicitly include PACER access as a mandatory fee waiver. The court exercised its discretion to deny the request, noting that the plaintiff already has electronic access to case documents via CM/ECF and that the cost of additional research is minimal ($0.10/page, capped at $3.00/document). This aligns with the cited district court authorities and the general understanding that IFP status does not automatically extend to all electronic service fees. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on consistent district court precedent within the Ninth Circuit (and other circuits) that IFP status does not automatically waive PACER fees. The court provided a factual basis for the denial by noting the plaintiff's existing electronic access and the low cost of additional research. It did not skip any major arguments or binding authorities relevant to the specific motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 18-CV-1836 JLS (AHG)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR PACER ACCESS IFP 14 HON. TIMOTHY CASSERLY, et al., (ECF No. 77) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Raiser’s Ex Parte Application For 18 Order Allowing PACER Access IFP (“Mot.,” ECF No. 77). For the reasons stated below, 19 the Court DENIES the Motion. 20 Section 1915(a) provides that “[a]ny court of the United States may authorize the 21 commencement . . . of any suit . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a 22 person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets” showing that “the 23 person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). 24 However, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma 25 pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963). “Free access to the PACER 26 system is not a listed item under [28 U.S.C.] § 1915.” Meppelink v. Wilmington Sav. Fund 27 Soc’y FSB, No. C19-5655RJB, 2019 WL 7290779, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 30, 2019); see 28 also Straw v. Avvo, Inc., No. C20-0294JLR, 2020 WL 1182932, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 1 || 11, 2020) (denying IFP motion for PACER and CM/ECE access). “[IFP] status alone does 2 || not support a request to waive PACER fees.” Katumbusi v. Gary, No. 2:14-CV-1534 JAM 3 || AC, 2014 WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014). 4 Plaintiff requests free access to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records 5 ||system (“PACER”) because he “need[s] to do research and view and download docket 6 ||entries.”” Mot. at 1. Plaintiff has already received electronic filer and electronic service 7 status with the Court’s CM/ECF system. See ECF No. 29. Because Plaintiff is registered 8 electronic service, he receives one free electronic copy of all documents filed in this 9 ||case. Plaintiff states “the paper copies and electronic copies were lost” when his computers 10 || were stolen or broken. Mot. at 2. While the Court is sympathetic, the Court finds Plaintiff’ s 11 || electronic filing status provides him reasonable access to the documents filed in this case. 12 || Any additional documents Plaintiff needs for research can be accessed on PACER for a 13 || modest fee of $0.10 per page retrieved, and the charge for any single document is capped 14 |/at $3.00. The Court concludes these procedures provide reasonable access, and that 15 || Plaintiff has not made a showing that his PACER fees should be waived. 16 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: November 6, 2020 . tt 19 pen Janis L. Sammartino 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28