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)

Download PDF
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)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?