1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHIKODI CHIMA, Case No. 25-cv-06385-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF PACER FEES 10 JOHN DAVID PERKINS, LMFT, Re: Dkt. No. 4 11 Defendant.

12 13 On July 30, 2025, Plaintiff Chikodi Chima filed a motion to waive fees to access the Public 14 Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff argues that a waiver 15 is warranted because he is “a single father experiencing tremendous financial hardship related to 16 the allegations in my complaint.” 17 Through PACER, “users can view and print case filings, judicial opinions, and other 18 docket information from the federal trial, bankruptcy, and appellate courts.” In re Gollan, 728

, 1035 (9th Cir. 2013). PACER is supported by user fees. “In order to ensure the fees 20 do not impair public access to the courts, Congress directed the Judicial Conference to ‘provide for 21 exempting persons or classes of persons’ for whom fees would be an unreasonable burden.”

22 Under the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, effective January 1, 2020, all parties and 23 attorneys of record in a case receive one free electronic copy, via the notice of electronic filing or 24 notice of docket activity, of all documents filed electronically. See 25 https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule. If an 26 individual chooses to access court records through PACER, the fee is $0.10 per page, and the 27 charge for any document is capped at $3, which is equivalent to 30 pages.

No fee is owed for 1 cycle.

No fee is charged for viewing judicial opinions.

Additionally, no fee is charged for 2 viewing case information or documents at courthouse public access terminals.

3 The Fee Schedule also provides for discretionary fee exemptions for persons such as 4 indigents. A court considering a request for exemption must find “that those seeking an 5 exemption have demonstrated that an exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable 6 burdens and to promote public access to information.”

In the event a court grants an 7 exemption, “the exemption should be granted for a definite period of time, should be limited in 8 scope, and may be revoked at the discretion of the court granting the exemption.”

Further, 9 “the user receiving the exemption must agree not to sell the data obtained as a result, and must not 10 transfer any data obtained as the result of a fee exemption, unless expressly authorized by the 11 court.”

12 “Exemptions from PACER user fees are uncommon.” Katumbusi v. Gary,

5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014); U.S.A. v. Gartenlaub,

, at *4 (C.D. 14 Cal. July 3, 2025). Here, it is not clear why Plaintiff needs access to PACER to pursue this 15 litigation beyond that which is already provided under the Fee Schedule. Although Plaintiff has 16 been granted in forma pauperis status, “the in forma pauperis statute does not provide that a court 17 may exempt a litigant from fees associated with PACER.” Luehring v. Los Angeles Cnty., 2021

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021) (citing

(a)). Additionally, the Court 19 notes that proceeding in forma pauperis is not in itself sufficient to establish that payment of 20 PACER fees constitutes an unreasonable burden. See Soper v. United Airlines, Inc.,

3915112, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2024) (“[T]he court finds Plaintiff’s reliance on his indigent 22 status alone does not adequately show that PACER fees should be waived.”). 23 Further, under the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, Plaintiff is already entitled to 24 one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically in this case, and there would be no 25 charge for electronic access to documents unless more than $30 is accrued in a quarterly billing 26 cycle. If Plaintiff does accrue more than $30 in a quarter, Plaintiff may apply for a fee waiver at 27 that time. See Mintz v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co.,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2025) 1 any evidence of her PACER balance or justification that her request was necessary); Gartenlaub, 2 |}

, at *4 (denying request for waiver where party “has not attached any 3 documentation showing his outstanding PACER balance, how PACER was used for his motion 4 || before the Ninth Circuit, or how PACER will be used for his forthcoming Rule 60(b) motion.”); 5 Klement v. Lizola,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2020) (noting that plaintiff was 6 || required to provide a copy of his PACER bill and explanation of how PACER was used before his 7 PACER fees were waived). 8 In light of PACER’s automatic fee exemptions and the otherwise modest PACER fees, as 9 well as the lack of any outstanding PACER balance, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to make 10 || the requisite showing to entitle him to an exemption. See Gartenlaub,

, at *4; 11 || Raiser v. City of Temecula,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 22, 2018) (“Tn light of the 12 automatic fee exemptions to the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule and modest PACER fees, 5 13 the Court finds that Plaintiff is not unreasonably burdened and has reasonable access to his case 14 || iwnformation.”); Katumbusi,

, at *4 (“Exemptions from PACER user fees are 3 15 uncommon. In forma pauperis status alone does not support a request to waive PACER fees. All a 16 || parties and attorneys of record receive one free electronic copy of documents filed with the court if 3 17 they are registered with the court’s CM/ECF system. ... Further, if plaintiff chooses to access S 18 court records through PACER, the fee is a modest $0.10 per page retrieved, and the charge for any 19 single document has a cap of $3.00 which is equivalent to 30 pages. In light of these procedures, 20 || which provide reasonable access, plaintiff has not justified the waiver of PACER fees.”). 21 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: August 1, 2025 25 AN. Lj, — THOMAS S. HIXSON 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28