The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00270-MR-WCM
MACKENZIE ELAINE BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) O R D E R
)
HENDERSON COUNTY )
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Letters [Docs. 29; 30;
31].
Mackenzie Elaine Brown (“Plaintiff”), who is proceeding pro se,
initiated this action by filing her Complaint on September 14, 2023. [Doc. 1].
By her letters, Plaintiff now requests that the Court waive the $181.00 fee
she incurred for downloading documents via the Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (“PACER”) system.1 [See Docs. 29; 30; 31].
1 In its discretion, and considering Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court will
construe Plaintiff’s letters as a motion to waive her PACER fee. However, Plaintiff is
hereby advised that only motions in accord with the Local Rules of this Court may be
ruled upon. Accordingly, any further letters filed by Plaintiff will be disregarded.
PACER allows users to “view and print case filings, judicial opinions,
and other docket information from the federal trial, bankruptcy, and appellate
courts.” See In re Gollan, 728 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir. 2013). “PACER
charges user fees to cover the costs of maintaining the service.” Blackwell
v. Soc. Sec., No. 23-CV-1865 (JRT/TFD), 2024 WL 169107, at *1 (D. Minn.
Jan. 16, 2024); see also Luehring v. Los Angeles Cnty., No. 2:21-cv-01426,
2021 WL 4533275, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021). However, “to ensure the
fees do not impair public access to the courts,” certain exemptions exist “for
classes of persons for whom fees would be an unreasonable burden.” In re
Gollan, 728 F.3d at 1035 (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, the
following fee exemptions are automatic:
• No fee is owed for electronic access to court
data or audio files via PACER until an account
holder accrues charges of more than $30.00 in
a quarterly billing cycle.
• Parties in a case (including pro se litigants) and
attorneys of record receive one free electronic
copy, via the notice of electronic filing or notice
of docket activity, of all documents filed
electronically, if receipt is required by law or
directed by the filer.
• No fee is charged for access to judicial
opinions.
• No fee is charged for viewing case information
or documents at courthouse public access
terminals.
• No fee is charged for Chapter 13 bankruptcy
trustees to download quarterly (i.e., once every
90 days) a list of the trustee’s cases from the
PACER Case Locator.
See United States Courts, Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule,
https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-
schedule (last accessed Apr. 19, 2024). In addition to these automatic
exemptions, the Court may, in its discretion, grant a fee exemption where it
finds “that those seeking an exemption have demonstrated that an
exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to
promote public access to information[.]” Id.
Here, Plaintiff contends that the Court should waive her $181.00
PACER fee because she “can’t afford to pay” it, and because she “was
unaware that [she] would be charged for downloading documents” from
PACER. [See, e.g., Doc. 31]. However, Plaintiff has not submitted any
evidence indicating that it would be particularly burdensome for her to pay
the fee she incurred. To the extent that she intends to rely on the Court’s
Order allowing her to proceed in forma pauperis, “the in forma pauperis
statute does not provide that a court may exempt a litigant from fees
associated with PACER.” See Luehring, 2021 WL 4533275, at *1; see also
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Thus, “proceeding in forma pauperis is not in itself
sufficient to establish that payment of PACER fees constitutes an
unreasonable burden.” See Luehring, 2021 WL 4533275, at *1; Olivia v.
Brookwood Coram I, LLC, No. 14-CV-2513 (JMA) (AYS), 2015 WL 1966357,
at *1-*2 (E.D.N.Y Apr. 30, 2015) (“[A] party seeking a discretionary
exemption [from PACER fees] cannot rely on his in forma pauperis status
alone.” (quotations and citations omitted)); Murray v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub.
Safety, No. 1:14CV985, 2014 WL 12651234, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 8, 2014);
Katumbusi v. Gary, No. 2:14-CV-1534 JAM AC, 2014 WL 5698816, at *4
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014) (“In forma pauperis status alone does not support
a request to waive PACER fees.”).
Additionally, as noted above, the automatic exemptions provide pro se
litigants, such as Plaintiff, with a free copy of all the documents filed in their
case. Thus, Plaintiff could have downloaded every document in her case
without incurring any PACER fee—much less a nearly $200 fee. Moreover,
while PACER fees are ordinarily $0.10 per page, the fee is capped at $3.00
per document. See United States Courts, Electronic Public Access Fee
Schedule, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/electronic-public-
access-fee-schedule (last accessed Apr. 19, 2024). Therefore, excluding
Court Orders, for which PACER does not charge, and the documents Plaintiff
filed herself, she could have downloaded every document in her case several
times before incurring the fee here at issue.” Plaintiff has presented nothing
as to what she downloaded and why such documents were needed relative
to this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Court needs
to waive her PACER fee to ensure her access to documents in her case.
In sum, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that paying her PACER fee
would be unreasonably burdensome, nor has she shown that she needs free
access to PACER to obtain information related to her case. Accordingly, her
motion is denied.*
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs Letters [Docs. 29; 30;
31] are hereby construed as a motion to waive her $181.00 PACER fee and
that said motion is hereby DENIED.
Signed: April 23, 2024
IT 1S SO ORDERED.
a if
Martifi Reidinger Cy
Chief United States District Judge “*‘l
2 Nineteen of the 32 documents in Plaintiff's case are either Court Orders or documents
that she filed. Thus, even if the remaining 13 documents were all over thirty pages in
length (they are not), Plaintiff could have downloaded each of them more than an
additional four times before incurring a $181.00 fee.
3 Plaintiff also notes that she was unaware that she would be charged for downloading
documents through PACER. [See Doc. 31]. However, the Fee Schedule does not
recognize this as a basis for waiving PACER fees. Moreover, the PACER system
provides users with ample warning that they may be charged for accessing documents.