UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

 Mariama Moore,                     Case No. 24-CV-0789 (PJS/JFD)        

               Plaintiff,                                                

 v.                                          ORDER                       

 St. Paul Police Department,                                             

               Defendant.                                                

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                           
    1.   The application to proceed in forma pauperis of Plaintiff Mariama Moore 
(Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED.                                                  
    2.   Ms. Moore must submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form 
USM-285) for each defendant. If Ms. Moore does not complete and return the Marshal 
Service Forms within 30 days of this Order’s date, the Court will recommend dismissing 
this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Marshal Service Forms will be 
provided to Ms. Moore by the Court.                                       
    3.   After receipt of the completed Marshal Service Form, the U.S. Marshals 
Service is directed to effect service of process on Defendant St. Paul Police Department 
consistent with Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.        
    4.   Ms. Moore’s request for a “fee exemption for [her PACER] account” is 
DENIED.1 Ms. Moore has stated that her PACER account is “disabled for non-payment,” 

1 Ms. Moore made this request in an email (dated March 29, 2024) to several judges, 
including Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, who is the district judge assigned to this matter. 
and suggests that she “cannot afford the fees.” In response to an inquiry from the Court, 
the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts stated that Ms. Moore used PACER between 

January and March of this year, payment on Ms. Moore’s PACER account is past due, and 
her PACER account has been disabled as a result. However, this does not mean Ms. Moore 
cannot use PACER at all and after reviewing the access to PACER that Ms. Moore still 
has, the Court does not find she needs a fee exemption.                   
    Under the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule implemented by the U.S. federal 
courts, “[c]ourts may exempt certain persons or classes of persons from payment of the 

user access fee”—in other words, the fee to access PACER. See U.S. Courts, Electronic 
Public Access Fee Schedule, available at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/ 
electronic-public-access-fee-schedule (last accessed Apr. 5, 2024). But in granting an 
exemption—which should be “the exception, not the rule”—a court must find “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.” See id.; see also, e.g., 
Walker v. Shafer, No. 16-CV-5121 (JLV), 

, at *3 (D.S.D. Feb. 9, 2018) 
(citing Fee Schedule).                                                    
    Ms. Moore has not demonstrated that she needs an exemption. Under the Fee 
Schedule, “[p]arties 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 

Requests for any Court relief—such as Ms. Moore’s fee-waiver request—should be made 
in docketed motions, not emails. Ms. Moore is therefore warned that this Court may 
disregard any further requests that she makes through email rather than through standard 
motion practice.                                                          
all documents filed electronically . . . .” Furthermore, “[n]o fee is charged for access to 
judicial opinions,” and “[n]o fee is charged for viewing case information or documents at 

courthouse public access terminals.” Again upon inquiry, the Administrative Office of U.S. 
Courts explained that holders of PACER accounts that are disabled for past due bills are 
still able to have “one free look” at documents filed in cases in which they are a party. 
Because Ms. Moore can still have a free look at all the documents filed in her case, the 
Court will not grant an exemption.                                        


Date: April 9, 2024                 s/  John F. Docherty                 
                                   JOHN F. DOCHERTY                      
                                   United States Magistrate Judge        

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

 Mariama Moore,                     Case No. 24-CV-0789 (PJS/JFD)        

               Plaintiff,                                                

 v.                                          ORDER                       

 St. Paul Police Department,                                             

               Defendant.                                                

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:                                           
    1.   The application to proceed in forma pauperis of Plaintiff Mariama Moore 
(Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED.                                                  
    2.   Ms. Moore must submit a properly completed Marshal Service Form (Form 
USM-285) for each defendant. If Ms. Moore does not complete and return the Marshal 
Service Forms within 30 days of this Order’s date, the Court will recommend dismissing 
this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Marshal Service Forms will be 
provided to Ms. Moore by the Court.                                       
    3.   After receipt of the completed Marshal Service Form, the U.S. Marshals 
Service is directed to effect service of process on Defendant St. Paul Police Department 
consistent with Rule 4(j) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.        
    4.   Ms. Moore’s request for a “fee exemption for [her PACER] account” is 
DENIED.1 Ms. Moore has stated that her PACER account is “disabled for non-payment,” 

1 Ms. Moore made this request in an email (dated March 29, 2024) to several judges, 
including Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, who is the district judge assigned to this matter. 
and suggests that she “cannot afford the fees.” In response to an inquiry from the Court, 
the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts stated that Ms. Moore used PACER between 

January and March of this year, payment on Ms. Moore’s PACER account is past due, and 
her PACER account has been disabled as a result. However, this does not mean Ms. Moore 
cannot use PACER at all and after reviewing the access to PACER that Ms. Moore still 
has, the Court does not find she needs a fee exemption.                   
    Under the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule implemented by the U.S. federal 
courts, “[c]ourts may exempt certain persons or classes of persons from payment of the 

user access fee”—in other words, the fee to access PACER. See U.S. Courts, Electronic 
Public Access Fee Schedule, available at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/ 
electronic-public-access-fee-schedule (last accessed Apr. 5, 2024). But in granting an 
exemption—which should be “the exception, not the rule”—a court must find “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.” See id.; see also, e.g., 
Walker v. Shafer, No. 16-CV-5121 (JLV), 

, at *3 (D.S.D. Feb. 9, 2018) 
(citing Fee Schedule).                                                    
    Ms. Moore has not demonstrated that she needs an exemption. Under the Fee 
Schedule, “[p]arties 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 

Requests for any Court relief—such as Ms. Moore’s fee-waiver request—should be made 
in docketed motions, not emails. Ms. Moore is therefore warned that this Court may 
disregard any further requests that she makes through email rather than through standard 
motion practice.                                                          
all documents filed electronically . . . .” Furthermore, “[n]o fee is charged for access to 
judicial opinions,” and “[n]o fee is charged for viewing case information or documents at 

courthouse public access terminals.” Again upon inquiry, the Administrative Office of U.S. 
Courts explained that holders of PACER accounts that are disabled for past due bills are 
still able to have “one free look” at documents filed in cases in which they are a party. 
Because Ms. Moore can still have a free look at all the documents filed in her case, the 
Court will not grant an exemption.                                        


Date: April 9, 2024                 s/  John F. Docherty                 
                                   JOHN F. DOCHERTY                      
                                   United States Magistrate Judge