Raiser v. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California et al

Filing 13

ORDER Accepting Filing Fee as Timely, and Denying Without Prejudice Waiver of Pacer Fees (ECF no. 12 ). Signed by Judge Todd W. Robinson on 11/16/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jmr)

Case 3:20-cv-01490-TWR-AGS Document 13 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.405 Page 1 of 2

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)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER (1) ACCEPTING FILING
FEE AS TIMELY, AND
(2) DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE WAIVER OF PACER
FEES

v.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15
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
20-CV-1490 TWR (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01490-TWR-AGS Document 13 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.406 Page 2 of 2

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

be granted only when “those seeking an exemption have demonstrated that an exemption

4

is 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

7

Nov. 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).

(last

accessed

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

Mar. 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
24

Dated: November 16, 2020

25
26
27
28
2
20-CV-1490 TWR (AGS)