Raiser v. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Aaron Raiser filed an ex parte application to have his filing fee deemed timely and to waive PACER fees across multiple federal districts and circuits. The court deemed the filing fee timely but denied the request for a PACER fee waiver without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Deemed Plaintiff's filing fee timely pursuant to a prior order.“The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application and DEEMS Plaintiff’s filing fee timely pursuant to the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw’s September 11, 2020 Order.” | agree with court The court relies on a prior order (ECF No. 5) and the plaintiff's evidence of timely payment to correct a clerical error regarding the filing fee. This is a standard administrative correction. |
Denied Plaintiff's request for a waiver of PACER fees without prejudice.“The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff has not met his burden... and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's request for a waiver of PACER fees.” | agree with court The court applied the standard that PACER fee exemptions are uncommon and require a showing of unreasonable burden. It found the plaintiff's request too broad (covering multiple circuits/districts) and noted the modest cost of PACER, concluding the plaintiff did not meet the burden. The denial without prejudice allows for a more specific motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the high bar for PACER fee waivers and applies it to the plaintiff's overly broad request. It distinguishes the filing fee (which was paid) from the ongoing PACER access (which requires a specific showing of need). The reliance on district court cases and the official fee schedule is appropriate for this procedural matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 20-CV-1490 TWR (AGS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) ACCEPTING FILING 13 v. FEE AS TIMELY, AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT 14 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT PREJUDICE WAIVER OF PACER COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 15 FEES DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 16 Defendants. (ECF No. 12) 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Raiser’s Ex Parte Application for Order 19 Allowing (1) Filing Fee Paid Nunc Pro Tunc, and (2) PACER Access IFP (“Ex Parte 20 App.,” ECF No. 12), which was accepted on discrepancy. (See ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff 21 explains that he timely paid his filing fee by October 26, 2020, but that it was mistakenly 22 returned. (See Ex Parte App. at 2; see also Ex. 1.) The Court therefore GRANTS IN 23 PART Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application and DEEMS Plaintiff’s filing fee timely pursuant 24 to the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw’s September 11, 2020 Order. (See ECF No. 5.) 25 Plaintiff also “asks for PACER access IFP in all courts in this court, the central 26 district of California, district of Utah, the district of Columbia and the southern District of 27 Ohio federal courts, and the courts of appeals over those courts, the 9th Circuit, 10th 28 Circuit, 6th Circuit and the circuit court of appeals for the DC and his cases in those courts.” 1 || (See id. at 3.) “Exemptions from PACER user fees are uncommon,” Katumbusi v. Gary, 2 || No. 2:14-CV-1534 JAM AC, 2014 WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014), and may 3 granted only when “those seeking an exemption have demonstrated that an exemption 4 necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to 5 ||information.” United States Courts, Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, https://www. 6 || uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule (last accessed 7 11, 2020); see also Emrit v. Cent. Payment Corp., No. 14-CV-00042-JCS, 2014 WL 8 || 1028388, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014). 9 Plaintiff has introduced evidence of his limited finances. (See Ex Parte App. at 4.) 10 || Rather than proceed in forma pauperis in this action, however, Plaintiff elected to pay the 11 || full $400 filing fee. (See ECF Nos. 2, 4, 12.) By contrast, “[t]he cost of using PACER is 12 || very modest.” Givens v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. C 06-2505 MHP (PR), 2009 13 || WL 650264, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2009); see also Katumbusi, 2014 WL 5698816, at 14 ||*4. Further, it appears that Plaintiff mainly seeks access to the documents filed in his own 15 ||cases. (See Ex Parte App. at 3-4.) Absent information regarding the specific cases to 16 || which Plaintiff requires access, “the court will not give him carte blanche to access through 17 || PACER the documents filed not only in his case but in thousands of cases throughout the 18 || federal court system.” See Givens, 2009 WL 650264, at *4. The Court therefore concludes 19 || that Plaintiff has not met his burden, see, e.g., Emrit, 2014 WL 1028388, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 20 13, 2014) (citing Givens, 2009 WL 650264, at *4), and DENIES WITHOUT 21 || PREJUDICE Plaintiff's request for a waiver of PACER fees. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: November 16, 2020 Tan (\obn— Honorable Todd W. Robinson 26 United States District Court 27 28