Chasteen v. Johnson et al

Filing 108

ORDER denying 99 Motion to Permit Exemption of PACER Case Access Fees; adopting Report and Recommendations re 100 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 3/5/2013. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ADAM CHASTEEN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-cv-229

v.

Judge Marbley

ROD JOHNSON, et al.,

Magistrate Judge King

Defendants.
ORDER

On January 23, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that plaintiff’s
motion for an exemption from payment of electronic public access fees, Doc. No. 99, be denied.
Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 100. This matter is now before the Court on
plaintiff’s objection to that recommendation. Objection, Doc. No. 102.
In making her recommendation, the Magistrate Judge reasoned that plaintiff, who was
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis but who is no longer incarcerated, had no made the
showing of cause required for such an exemption to the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule
(reprinted with 28 U.S.C. § 1914) promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United States:
In his motion, plaintiff states in conclusory fashion that the exemption
requested by him is necessary to avoid unreasonable burden on him, but he
does not explain why the electronic copies of every document filed in this
case, and which have presumably been made available to him free of charge,
are insufficient to permit him to vigorously pursue his claims. Similarly,
plaintiff, who is no longer incarcerated, does not explain why he cannot
reasonably be expected to view documents, free of charge, at any of the
three seats of this Court. Finally, it is unclear which particular documents
plaintiff seeks. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that plaintiff
has not established that he is entitled to an exemption from payment of
PACER fees. See Zied-Campbell v. Richman, 317 Fed. Appx. 247
(3rd Cir. Mar. 25, 2009); Jaax v. Jayhawk Marina, Inc., 2009 WL 1226742,
1 

*1 (D.Kan. April 30, 2009).
Order and Report and Recommendation, p.3. In his objections, plaintiff represents that he is
unaware that he has been provided an electronic copy of filings, although he appears to
acknowledge that copies of filings are mailed to him. Objection, p. 2. He complains that the
delay in receiving copies of filings through the mail “cause[s] him to be hindered in pursuing his
claims with regard to the timeliness of responsive pleadings.” Id.
In granting an exemption to the fee schedule, a court “must find that [the party seeking
the exemption has] demonstrated that an exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable
burdens and to promote public access to information.” The Judicial Conference Policy Notes
caution that “[e]xemptions should be granted as the exception, not the rule.”

Moreover,

electronic data may be “viewed free at public terminals at the courthouse . . . .”
This Court concludes that the modest delay in receipt of filings mailed to plaintiff does
not justify the exemption requested by him. Plaintiff may certainly seek an extension of time
should any such delay impair his ability to meet a filing deadline. Moreover, plaintiff has not
explained why he cannot view all filings in this case at the public viewing stations available to
him at every seat of this Court.
Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are therefore DENIED. The
Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 100, is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Permit Exemption of PACER Case Access Fees, Doc. No. 99, is therefore DENIED.
s/Algenon L. Marbley
Algenon L. Marbley
United States District Judge

2