Raiser v. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California et al
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 20-CV-1490 TWR (AGS)
ORDER (1) ACCEPTING FILING
FEE AS TIMELY, AND
(2) DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE WAIVER OF PACER
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
(ECF No. 12)
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Raiser’s Ex Parte Application for Order
Allowing (1) Filing Fee Paid Nunc Pro Tunc, and (2) PACER Access IFP (“Ex Parte
App.,” ECF No. 12), which was accepted on discrepancy. (See ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff
explains that he timely paid his filing fee by October 26, 2020, but that it was mistakenly
returned. (See Ex Parte App. at 2; see also Ex. 1.) 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. (See ECF No. 5.)
Plaintiff also “asks for PACER access IFP in all courts in this court, the central
district of California, district of Utah, the district of Columbia and the southern District of
Ohio federal courts, and the courts of appeals over those courts, the 9th Circuit, 10th
Circuit, 6th Circuit and the circuit court of appeals for the DC and his cases in those courts.”
20-CV-1490 TWR (AGS)
Case 3:20-cv-01490-TWR-AGS Document 13 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.406 Page 2 of 2
(See id. at 3.) “Exemptions from PACER user fees are uncommon,” Katumbusi v. Gary,
No. 2:14-CV-1534 JAM AC, 2014 WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014), and may
be granted only when “those seeking an exemption have demonstrated that an exemption
is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to
information.” United States Courts, Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, https://www.
Nov. 11, 2020); see also Emrit v. Cent. Payment Corp., No. 14-CV-00042-JCS, 2014 WL
1028388, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014).
Plaintiff has introduced evidence of his limited finances. (See Ex Parte App. at 4.)
Rather than proceed in forma pauperis in this action, however, Plaintiff elected to pay the
full $400 filing fee. (See ECF Nos. 2, 4, 12.) By contrast, “[t]he cost of using PACER is
very modest.” Givens v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. C 06-2505 MHP (PR), 2009
WL 650264, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2009); see also Katumbusi, 2014 WL 5698816, at
*4. Further, it appears that Plaintiff mainly seeks access to the documents filed in his own
cases. (See Ex Parte App. at 3–4.) Absent information regarding the specific cases to
which Plaintiff requires access, “the court will not give him carte blanche to access through
PACER the documents filed not only in his case but in thousands of cases throughout the
federal court system.” See Givens, 2009 WL 650264, at *4. The Court therefore concludes
that Plaintiff has not met his burden, see, e.g., Emrit, 2014 WL 1028388, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 13, 2014) (citing Givens, 2009 WL 650264, at *4), and DENIES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request for a waiver of PACER fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2020
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?