Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00751/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00751-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cvp Civil Rights (Personal Property)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 AARON RAISER, 

12 Plaintiff, 

13 v. 

14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al., 

15 Defendants. 

Case No.: 19cv751-GPC(KSC) 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S 

EX PARTE REQUEST FOR COPIES 

OR FREE ACCESS TO PACER 

[Doc. No. 41.] 

16 

17 Plaintiff Aaron Raiser, proceedingpra se and informa pauperis, filed this civil 

18 rights action pursuant to Title 42, United State Code, Section 1983, alleging that he was 

19 unlawfully detained by San Diego County deputy sheriffs on three separate occasions in 

20 three different locations. [Doc. No. 9.] On December 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an Ex 

21 Parte Application explaining that his laptop computer was stolen, and, as a result, he no 

22 longer has copies of the operative First Amended Complaint in this case or the Order 

23 permitting service of process by the U.S. Marshal. [Doc. No. 41-1, at p. I.] 

24 In his Ex Parte Application, plaintiff makes two requests. First, plaintiff requests 

25 that the Court send him with copies of the First Amended Complaint and the Order 

26 permitting service of process by the U.S. Marshal via U.S. Mail or e-mail, so that he can 

27 forward them to the U.S. Marshal for service on defendants who have not yet been 

28 served. If the Court does not provide him with copies of these documents, plaintiff 

19cv751-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:19-cv-00751-GPC-KSC Document 47 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1 represents he will be unable to complete service of process in this case, because he only 

2 has $10 and no current work. [Doc. No. 41-1, at p. 1.] 

3 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs request for copies of the 

4 First Amended Complaint and the Order permitting service of process by the U.S. 

5 Marshal. The Court will send these documents, as well as a copy of the summons, to 

6 plaintiff in PDF format via e-mail at the e-mail address plaintiff provided to the Court for 

7 electronic service of court documents in the CM/ECF system. 

8 Alternatively, plaintiff requests that the Court waive fees and allow him free access 

9 to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system ("PACER"). If plaintiff has free 

10 access to PACER, he states that he would be able to print copies of the First Amended 

11 Complaint and Order allowing service by the U.S. Marshal and then forward these 

12 documents to the U.S. Marshal so that service of process in this case can be completed as 

13 to all defendants. [Doc. No. 41-1, at p. 2.] In an attached Declaration, plaintiff also 

14 mentions he currently has no access to PACER. Apparently, plaintiffs PACER account 

15 has been disabled because he owes $80 that he is unable to pay right now. [Doc. No. 41, 

16 at p. 2.] In addition, plaintiff argues that granting him free access to PACER for this case 

17 and for this District would be helpful, because parties often cite non-published cases, and 

18 free access would allow him to read the cited cases. [Doc. No. 41-1, at p. 2.] In sum, it 

19 appears that plaintiff is requesting that the Court (1) waive the $80 in PACER fees that he 

20 has already incurred; (2) reactivate his PACER account; and (3) direct PACER to waive 

21 any future fees. 

22 In an Order filed on July 22, 2019, the District Court granted plaintiffs application 

23 for an order allowing him CM/ECF access in this case. [Doc. No. 11.] In other words, 

24 this case has been designated as an e-filing case, and, as a result, all documents (e.g., 

25 orders, opinions, motions, oppositions, and replies) are served on plaintiff electronically 

26 at the e-mail address he provided to the Court for this purpose. As an e-filing litigant, 

27 plaintiff should be able to view and download all filed documents in this case once 

28 without charge. Downloaded documents can then be printed or electronically saved for 

2 

19cv75 l-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:19-cv-00751-GPC-KSC Document 47 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1 future reference. In his Motion, plaintiff does not indicate whether he is unable to access, 

2 view, and download newly filed documents in this case without charge because of the 

3 deactivation of his PACER account. Typically, it would only be necessary for an e-filing 

4 litigant to pay for additional copies of filed documents at the current PACER cost of ten 

5 cents per page with a maximum cost per document of$3.00. "No fee is charged for 

6 access to judicial opinions." Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, at 28 United States 

7 Code Section 1914, at Nos. 1-8. 

8 Courts may exempt some individuals and groups, including indigents, from 

9 payment of PACER access fees. However, "[a] party seeking a discretionary exemption 

10 cannot rely on his informa pauperis status alone." In re Club Ventures Investments LLC, 

11 507 B.R. 91, 99 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). "In considering granting an exemption, courts must 

12 find: that those seeking an exemption have demonstrated that an exemption is necessary 

13 in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information; 

14 [and] that individual researchers requesting an exemption have shown" that the 

15 exemption is limited in scope and "not intended for redistribution on the internet or for 

16 commercial purposes." Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, at 28 United States Code 

17 Section 1914, at No. 9. 

18 Without more, it is unclear why plaintiff incurred $80 in PACER access fees that 

19 he is unable to pay. It is also unclear whether any of these printing costs were incurred in 

20 connection with this case. The Court issued an Order allowing plaintiff access to filed 

21 documents through the CM/ECF system early in the case. [Doc. No. 11.] The factual 

22 and legal issues in the case are not complex, and defendants have only filed two motions 

23 thus far. Other than citations to decisions in cases where plaintiff was the complaining 

24 party, defendants' two Motions to Dismiss and a related Reply only cited a total of three 

25 unpublished opinions. [Doc. No. 7, at p. 5; Doc. No. 12-1, at p. 3; Doc. No. 22, at p. 3.] 

26 Via PACER, plaintiff should have been able to review these unpublished opinions 

27 without charge. Even assuming plaintiff printed these unpublished decisions, the total 

28 printing costs would not have exceeded $9. Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, at 28 

3 

19cv751-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:19-cv-00751-GPC-KSC Document 47 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
1 United States Code Section 1914, at No. 1 (indicating the cost for electronic access to any 

2 case document is $0.10 per page "not to exceed the fee for thirty pages"). 

3 The District Court's Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss did cite 

4 approximately ten unpublished decisions, and these decisions could also have been 

5 reviewed via PACER without charge [Doc. No. 27]. It is unclear why plaintiff would 

6 have had any need to print any of these cases, but even ifhe did, the charges would not 

7 have exceeded $3 0. To the extent the $80 in unpaid PACER fees were incurred in 

8 connection with other cases, it would not be appropriate for this Court to waive those 

9 charges, especially if other courts previously denied plaintiff's requests for a waiver of 

10 PACER fees in his other cases. 

11 In sum, plaintiff has not demonstrated that an exemption of PACER fees is 

12 necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens in the case. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for 

13 a waiver of prior and future PACER fees is DENIED at this time. Plaintiff may renew 

14 his motion if there is additional information that could satisfy the unreasonable burden 

15 standard; ifhe is unable to view, save, and print copies of newly filed documents in this 

16 case for a limited time after receipt; or if the disabling of his PACER account prohibits 

17 him from reviewing judicial opinions in other cases at no charge even ifhe does not print 

18 them. 

19 To the extent plaintiff has not been able to serve any remaining defendants because 

20 his computer was stolen, and he did not have access to a copy of the First Amended 

21 Complaint and the Order permitting service of process by the U.S. Marshal, plaintiff is 

22 GRANTED an extension of 15 days from the date this Order is filed to complete service 

23 of process in this case. 

24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

25 Dated: January L, 2020 

26 

27 

28 

United States Magistrate Judge 

4 

l 9cv7 51-GPC(KSC) 

Case 3:19-cv-00751-GPC-KSC Document 47 Filed 01/08/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4