Harris v. Frsco Corporations

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedJanuary 24, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-01135
StatusUnknown

This text of Harris v. Frsco Corporations (Harris v. Frsco Corporations) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harris v. Frsco Corporations, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 *** 4 Tyler Harris, 5 Case No. 2:24-cv-01135-JAD-MDC Plaintiff, 6 vs. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PACER USER 7 Frsco Corporations, FEES (ECF NO. 43) AND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF 8 Defendant. NO. 46)

10 Pro se plaintiff Tyler Harris filed (1) a Motion for Exemption from Pacer User Fees (“Pacer 11 Motion”) and an (2) Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Application”). ECF Nos. 43 and 12 46.1 The Court denies both Motions. The District Judge recently denied plaintiff’s previous IFP 13 Application because plaintiff already paid the filing fee in this case. See ECF No. 42. The Court denies 14 plaintiffs new IFP Application as duplicative. ECF No. 46. The Court cautions plaintiff against filing 15 duplicative motions in this case as such conduct only slows the pace of this litigation and might result in 16 sanctions. 17 Plaintiff also moves for the Court to waive his PACER fees because he says he does not have the 18 money to pay them. ECF No. 43. The PACER system acts as a portal to information stored on the 19 Court's Case Management/Electronic Case Files ("CM/ECF") system. Through CM/ECF, all parties and 20 attorneys of record receive one free copy of all documents filed electronically. Considering this 21 22 23 1 Defense counsel did not file any oppositions. The Court reviews the motions on the merits, but 24 cautions defense counsel that failure to file oppositions in the future in this case will constitute consent to the granting of the motions. See Local Rule 7-2(d), which states that the failure of an opposing party 25 to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a motion for attorney’s fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion. procedure, plaintiff has not justified the waiver of PACER fees. See Nelson v. Sorrento Tower Apts., No. 1 3:21-cv-01554-RBM-JLB, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71879, 2023 WL 3061843, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2 2023) (citing Katumbusi v. Gary, No. 2:14 cv-01534-JAM-AC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154401, 2014 3 4 WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014) ("[e]xemptions from PACER user fees are uncommon[.]" 5 The Court finds that a waiver of PACER fees is not warranted here. 6 ACCORDINGLY, 7 IT IS SO ORDERED that: 8 1. Plaintiff Tyler Harris’s Motion for Exemption from Pacer User Fees (ECF No. 43) is DENIED. 9 2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 46) is DENIED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 DATE: January 24, 2025. 12 _________________________ 13 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier, III

United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 NOTICE 16 Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object to orders and reports and 17 recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk 18 of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal 19 may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified 20 time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). 21 This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) 22 23 failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District 24 Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 25 2 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, the plaintiff must immediately file written notification with the court of any 2 change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, 3 4 or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may 5 result in dismissal of the action. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
United States v. Horacio Alvarado
951 F.2d 22 (Second Circuit, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Harris v. Frsco Corporations, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-frsco-corporations-nvd-2025.