Nelson v. Sorrento Tower Apartments
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Warren F. Nelson moved to waive his outstanding PACER fees and all future fees, citing a balance of $73.80. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not justified the waiver because he is entitled to free electronic copies of all filed documents via the CM/ECF system.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion for Waiver of PACER Fees is denied.“Plaintiff’s Motion for Waiver of PACER fees is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that PACER fee waivers are uncommon and that in forma pauperis status alone is insufficient to warrant a waiver. The court relied on the fact that the plaintiff, as a party, receives free electronic copies of all documents through the CM/ECF system, which negates the necessity for paid PACER access to the same documents. This reasoning is consistent with the cited authority and general federal court practice regarding PACER fees. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on appropriate district court authority to deny the waiver. It correctly identifies that parties of record receive free access to filed documents via CM/ECF, which is the primary justification for denying PACER waivers to litigants. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this type of administrative motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WARREN F. NELSON, Case No.: 3:21-cv-01554-RBM-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR WAIVER OF PACER FEES AND SUPPORTING 14 SORRENTO TOWER APARTMENTS, AFFIDAVIT et al., 15 Defendants. 16 [Docs. 47, 48] 17 18 On December 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Waiver of Pacer Fees (Doc. 47) 19 and a supporting affidavit (Doc. 48). Plaintiff states that he has a balance of $73.80 in 20 PACER fees and requests the Court waive the current balance of PACER fees as well as 21 all future PACER fees. (Doc. 47 at 1–2.) The PACER System acts as a portal to 22 information stored on the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (“CM/ECF”) 23 system. 1 Through CM/ECF, all parties and attorneys of record receive one free electronic 24 copy of all documents filed electronically. In light of this procedure, Plaintiff has not 25 justified the waiver of PACER fees. See Katumbusi v. Gary, No. 2:14-CV-1534 JAM AC, 26 27 1 CM/ECF is the Court’s case management systems that maintains the electronic files in 28 1 || 2014 WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014) (“[e]xemptions from PACER user fees 2 uncommon” and “[i]n forma pauperis status alone does not support a request to waive 3 || PACER fees”). To date, Plaintiff should have received a copy of every order issued in this 4 ||matter. The Court finds that a waiver of PACER fees is neither appropriate nor warranted 5 this time. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Waiver of PACER fees is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATE: April 24, 2023 8 rsdg Wit gps □ 9 HON. RUTH BERMUBEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28