Johnson v. East Baton Rouge School System
ORDER denying 49 Motion Requesting to Access Pacer Free of Charge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 10/10/2017. (LLH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
EAST BATON ROUGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request “to access Pacer free of charge” (“Motion”). (R. Doc.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. (R. Doc. 3). This is an employment
discrimination in which Plaintiff alleges that her former employer, East Baton Rouge School
System, violated the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act.
Plaintiff has previously sought free access to information pursuant to a federal statute
allowing indigent habeas petitioners to seek, without costs, copies of certain documents filed in
If on any application for a writ of habeas corpus an order has been made permitting
the petitioner to prosecute the application in forma pauperis, the clerk of any court of
the United States shall furnish to the petitioner without cost certified copies of such
documents or parts of the record on file in his office as may be required by order of
the judge before whom the application is pending.
28 U.S.C. § 2250. To the extent Plaintiff is again seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2250, the
Court denies the relief requested on the basis that this is an employment discrimination action and
Plaintiff is not a habeas petitioner seeking relief with regard to a criminal conviction. (See R. Doc.
The Court will presume that Plaintiff is seeking relief pursuant to the Judicial Conference
Schedule of Fees, Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”).1 Paragraphs 1-7 of the
Fee Schedule detail the Fees for Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER), Fees for
Courthouse Electronic Access, and PACER Service Center Fees. Paragraph 8 of the Fee Schedule
details certain situations in which users are allowed free access to information, including a parties’
receipt of one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically “if receipt is required by law
or directed by the filer,” access to judicial opinions, and the viewing of case information or
documents “at courthouse public access terminals.”
To the extent Plaintiff desires to avail herself of the ability to receive one free copy of all
documents filed electronically in this case, she simply needs to complete the Pro Se E-Service & ENotice Consent Form (see attached). This will provide Plaintiff the ability to print out and/or save
any document filed in her case by any party or the Court. Should Plaintiff desire access to Pacer
without limitation, there are public access terminals available in the Clerk’s office for this specific
purposes. Plaintiff may also print any documents for a nominal per page fee.
To the extent that Plaintiff is instead seeking unfettered access to every case on Pacer
without limitation or payment of fees, from locations other than the public access terminal, that
request is denied. Paragraph 9 of the Fee Schedule provides that “Courts may exempt certain
persons from payment of the user access fee [if] those seeking an exemption have demonstrated that
an exception is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to
Plaintiff does not submit any information in support of a finding that the Court should award
her an exception from any fees regarding access to information on PACER. It is unclear whether
The Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, reprinted in 28 U.S.C. § 1914, was
issued in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1913, 1914, 1926, 1930, and 1932, with an effective date of April 1, 2007.
Plaintiff has attempted to view case information or documents at the public access terminal in the
Clerk’s Office, which is available during courthouse business hours at no charge. Plaintiff has not
demonstrated that an exemption to fees charged for printing documents from PACER, or access to
case information or documents outside of the public access terminal, is required to avoid
unreasonable burden to Plaintiff.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (R. Doc. 49) is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on October 10, 2017.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
E-SERVICE & E-NOTICE CONSENT FORM
In accordance with the provisions of F.R.Civ.P.5(b)(2)(D), I understand that service will be given
to me by electronic means to the primary e-mail address listed below. I agree to waive the
provisions of F.R.Civ.P.77(d) and F.R.Crim.P.49(c) providing service of notice of the entry of an
order or judgment by mail and consent that such notice may be served by electronic means. I
understand that this electronic service and notice will be in lieu of notice by mail in any case in
which this capability exists.
I understand it is my responsibility to provide the Clerk’s Office with a primary electronic mail
address and to notify the Clerk’s Office immediately if this primary electronic mail address
I understand that electronic mail filter software (SPAM filter) may interfere with receipt of email
from the Clerk’s Office, and I have verified that any such software installed on my computer or
network will not filter out messages sent from firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please TYPE the following information or use the FILL-IN form on the court’s
website at www.lamd.uscourts.gov/cmecf
City, State, Zip:
For E-SERVICE and
FAX signed form to 225-389-3550 (no cover sheet required)
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?