Lee v. City of Bloomington, The

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               

Claire J. Lee,                      Case No. 23-CV-2652 (SRN/DJF)       

              Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

The City of Bloomington,                                                
Bloomington HRA, Premier Properties,                                    
and Andrew Akins,                                                       

              Defendants.                                               


   Pro se Plaintiff Claire J. Lee requests the Court to waive or reduce her current and future 
fees for accessing court records using the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) 
database (ECF No. 52).  Ms. Lee states that she is indigent, has difficulty accessing the free access 
to Pacer available at the Courthouse, and prefers to monitor her case at her local library.  (Id.)  Ms. 
Lee provides no authority  to support her request.  (See id.)             
   “PACER charges user fees to cover the costs of maintaining the service.”  Blackwell v. Soc. 
Sec., No. 23-cv-1865 (JRT/JFD), 

, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2024); see also 
Frequently  Asked  Questions,  PACER,   https://pacer.uscourts.gov/help/faqs/ 
pricing#:~:text=search%20for%20me%3F-,Yes.,charged%20for%20any%20document% 
20applies (last visited June 3, 2024).  Parties, including those acting pro se, “get one ‘free look’ at 
documents electronically filed and served in their case.”  Blackwell, 

, at *1; see 
also Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-
forms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule  (last  visited  June  3,  2024)  (listing  fees  and 
automatic exemptions).  “After the ‘free look,’ PACER charges a fee, but PACER fees are waived 
for any user that spends less than $30 in a fiscal quarter” and all court opinions are free.  Blackwell, 

, at *1.                                                    
   Courts may relieve litigants from paying PACER charges based on finding they “‘have 
demonstrated that an exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to 

promote public access to information[.]’”  

 (quoting Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, 
supra (“[E]xemptions should be granted as the exception, not the rule.”).  The Court is sympathetic 
to Ms. Lee’s situation, but her financial status is not, alone, sufficient for the Court to grant an 
exemption in this case.  Ms. Lee does not allege she has been unable to receive notices of filings, 
and she has successfully filed numerous documents on the Court’s docket.  This indicates she is 
capable of litigating this case without a waiver, and that this case is not an exception to the normal 
rule against such exemptions.  See id. (finding waiver inappropriate when pro se plaintiff did not 
allege he lacked access to filings and successfully filed documents on the court’s docket; See 
Hunter v. Bradford, No. 4:14-CV-00613-KGB, 

, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10, 
2014) (same)).  The Court thus denies Ms. Lee’s request for these reasons. 

   Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Claire J. Lee’s request to waive or reduce her current and 
future fees for accessing court records using the Public Access to Court Electronic Records 
database (ECF No. [52]) is DENIED.                                        
Dated: June 3, 2024             s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                                Dulce J. Foster                         
                                United States Magistrate Judge          

                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                               

Claire J. Lee,                      Case No. 23-CV-2652 (SRN/DJF)       

              Plaintiff,                                                

v.                                          ORDER                       

The City of Bloomington,                                                
Bloomington HRA, Premier Properties,                                    
and Andrew Akins,                                                       

              Defendants.                                               


   Pro se Plaintiff Claire J. Lee requests the Court to waive or reduce her current and future 
fees for accessing court records using the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) 
database (ECF No. 52).  Ms. Lee states that she is indigent, has difficulty accessing the free access 
to Pacer available at the Courthouse, and prefers to monitor her case at her local library.  (Id.)  Ms. 
Lee provides no authority  to support her request.  (See id.)             
   “PACER charges user fees to cover the costs of maintaining the service.”  Blackwell v. Soc. 
Sec., No. 23-cv-1865 (JRT/JFD), 

, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 2024); see also 
Frequently  Asked  Questions,  PACER,   https://pacer.uscourts.gov/help/faqs/ 
pricing#:~:text=search%20for%20me%3F-,Yes.,charged%20for%20any%20document% 
20applies (last visited June 3, 2024).  Parties, including those acting pro se, “get one ‘free look’ at 
documents electronically filed and served in their case.”  Blackwell, 

, at *1; see 
also Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/services-
forms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule  (last  visited  June  3,  2024)  (listing  fees  and 
automatic exemptions).  “After the ‘free look,’ PACER charges a fee, but PACER fees are waived 
for any user that spends less than $30 in a fiscal quarter” and all court opinions are free.  Blackwell, 

, at *1.                                                    
   Courts may relieve litigants from paying PACER charges based on finding they “‘have 
demonstrated that an exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to 

promote public access to information[.]’”  

 (quoting Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, 
supra (“[E]xemptions should be granted as the exception, not the rule.”).  The Court is sympathetic 
to Ms. Lee’s situation, but her financial status is not, alone, sufficient for the Court to grant an 
exemption in this case.  Ms. Lee does not allege she has been unable to receive notices of filings, 
and she has successfully filed numerous documents on the Court’s docket.  This indicates she is 
capable of litigating this case without a waiver, and that this case is not an exception to the normal 
rule against such exemptions.  See id. (finding waiver inappropriate when pro se plaintiff did not 
allege he lacked access to filings and successfully filed documents on the court’s docket; See 
Hunter v. Bradford, No. 4:14-CV-00613-KGB, 

, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10, 
2014) (same)).  The Court thus denies Ms. Lee’s request for these reasons. 

   Based upon the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Claire J. Lee’s request to waive or reduce her current and 
future fees for accessing court records using the Public Access to Court Electronic Records 
database (ECF No. [52]) is DENIED.                                        
Dated: June 3, 2024             s/ Dulce J. Foster                      
                                Dulce J. Foster                         
                                United States Magistrate Judge