1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Angela Reliford, Case No. 2:25-cv-01088-GMN-BNW

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 Christopher M. Brown, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. ECF no. 75. Before this Court is her 11 motion for exemption from PACER fees. ECF No. 97. Plaintiff asserts that her financial 12 circumstances make PACER fees a substantial barrier to accessing her own case filings, orders, 13 and docket activity. Id. at 1. She attached a declaration stating that PACER attempted to charge 14 her account $80.30, but the charge failed due to insufficient funds. Id. at 5. Plaintiff explains that 15 the volume of docket activity in this case and the necessity of reviewing filings to comply with 16 deadlines warrants an exemption from PACER fees. Id. at 2. For the reasons discussed below, this 17 Court grants Plaintiff’s motion in part. 18 I. DISCUSSION 19 “With the PACER system users can view and print case filings, judicial opinions, and 20 other docket information from the federal trial, bankruptcy, and appellate courts.” In re Gollan, 21

(9th Cir. 2013). PACER is supported by user fees and, “[i]n order to ensure 22 the fees do not impair public access to the courts, Congress directed the Judicial Conference to 23 ‘provide for exempting persons or classes or persons’ for whom fees would be an unreasonable 24 burden.”

Parties in a case, including pro se litigants like Plaintiff, are included in the automatic 25 fee exemption because they receive “one free electronic copy, via the notice of electronic filing or 26 notice of docket activity, of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or 27 directed by the file.” See

1 The in forma pauperis statute does not exempt a litigant from PACER fees. See 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(a). And proceeding in forma pauperis is insufficient to establish that payment of PACER 3 fees constitutes an unreasonable burden. Leuhring v. Los Angeles County, No. 2:21-cv-01426- 4 GW-SHK,

(C. D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021). Rather, the fee schedule “requires those 5 seeking an exemption to demonstrate that an exemption is limited in scope and is necessary in 6 order to avoid an unreasonable burden.” Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, United States 7 Courts, (December 31, 2019), https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/electronic-public- 8 access-fee-schedule. The Judicial Conference “cautions that exemptions should be granted as the 9 exception, not the rule, and prohibits courts from exempting all users from [Electronic Public 10 Access] fees.”

It further “permits courts to grant exemptions for a definite period of time, to 11 limit the scope of the exemptions, and to revoke exemptions.”

12 Here, Plaintiff explained that it would be burdensome for her to pay the service fees 13 associated with using PACER given the volume of docket activity in this case and her limited 14 funds (which is supported by the fact that she had insufficient funds to pay the $80.30 PACER 15 charge). Plaintiff limits the scope of her request to this case. See ECF No. 97 at 2. This Court will 16 further limit the scope of her request to six months. Should Plaintiff require an exemption from 17 PACER fees after six months, she will need to file another motion. 18 Furthermore, this Court notes that Plaintiff is entitled to one free electronic copy of all 19 documents filed electronically in her case since she is pro se. See Electronic Public Access Fee 20 Schedule, United States Courts, (December 31, 2019), https://www.uscourts.gov/services- 21 forms/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule. She should endeavor to download/save these 22 free copies so that she can refer back to them without incurring additional fees. No fee is charged 23 for access to judicial opinions either.

Finally, Plaintiff may not sell any data she receives 24 through the exemption. See

25 / / 26 / / 27 / / 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for exemption from PACER fees (ECF No. 97) 3 || is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff will be exempted from paying the $80.30 in PACER fees, and she 4 || will be exempt from paying future fees in this case for six months. Still, Plaintiff is instructed to 5 || conserve resources by saving the one free copy she receives via the notice of electronic filing or 6 || notice of docket activity. 7 8 DATED: December 16, 2025 9 10 pam lea ween BRENDA WEKSLER 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28