Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground et al.

W.D. Washington

Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground et al.

DecidedOctober 17, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-05760

StatusUnknown

This text of Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground et al. (Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground et al., (W.D. Wash. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JORDAN SLACH, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05760-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. WAIVE PACER FEES (DKT. NO. 12) 13 CITY OF BATTLE GROUND et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to waive PACER fees. (Dkt. 17 No. 12.) Plaintiff moves the Court to waive his $327.20 existing balance as well as all future 18 fees. (Id.) For the reasons articulated herein, this motion is DENIED. 19 The Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule is clear. Except for certain limited 20 circumstances, the cost “for electronic access to any case document, docket sheet, or case- 21 specific report via PACER [is] $0.10 per page, not to exceed the fee for thirty pages.” Electronic 22 Public Access Fee Schedule, United States Courts (Dec. 31, 2019), 23 https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule. “No fee is 24 1 owed for electronic access to court data or audio files via PACER until an account holder accrues 2 charges of more than $30.00 in a quarterly billing cycle,” nor are fees charged “for access to 3 judicial opinions” or for “viewing case information or documents at courthouse public access 4 terminals.” Id.

5 Because the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule is publicly available and already has 6 measures in place to ensure costs are reasonable, “‘[e]xemptions from PACER user fees are 7 uncommon,’ and ‘[i]n forma pauperis status alone does not support a request to waive PACER 8 fees.’” Glenn v. Americo, 2:24-cv-00184-TL, 2024 WL 5077345, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 9 2024) (citing Katumbusi v. Gary, No. C14-1534, 2014 WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 10 2014.) Courts have consistently denied motions to waive PACER fees. See e.g., id.; Straw v. 11 Avvo, Inc., No. C20-0294JLR, 2020 WL 1182932, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2020); Meppelink 12 v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y FSB, C19-5655RJB, 2019 WL 7290779, at * 2 (W.D. Wash. 13 Dec. 30, 2019). Plaintiff’s stated justifications of his own inadvertent incurring of charges and 14 IFP status are insufficient to waive costs.

15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to waive PACER fees (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED. 16 Dated this 17th day of October, 2025. 17 a 18 David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JORDAN SLACH, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05760-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. WAIVE PACER FEES (DKT. NO. 12) 13 CITY OF BATTLE GROUND et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to waive PACER fees. (Dkt. 17 No. 12.) Plaintiff moves the Court to waive his $327.20 existing balance as well as all future 18 fees. (Id.) For the reasons articulated herein, this motion is DENIED. 19 The Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule is clear. Except for certain limited 20 circumstances, the cost “for electronic access to any case document, docket sheet, or case- 21 specific report via PACER [is] $0.10 per page, not to exceed the fee for thirty pages.” Electronic 22 Public Access Fee Schedule, United States Courts (Dec. 31, 2019), 23 https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule. “No fee is 24 1 owed for electronic access to court data or audio files via PACER until an account holder accrues 2 charges of more than $30.00 in a quarterly billing cycle,” nor are fees charged “for access to 3 judicial opinions” or for “viewing case information or documents at courthouse public access 4 terminals.” Id.

5 Because the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule is publicly available and already has 6 measures in place to ensure costs are reasonable, “‘[e]xemptions from PACER user fees are 7 uncommon,’ and ‘[i]n forma pauperis status alone does not support a request to waive PACER 8 fees.’” Glenn v. Americo, 2:24-cv-00184-TL, 2024 WL 5077345, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 9 2024) (citing Katumbusi v. Gary, No. C14-1534, 2014 WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 10 2014.) Courts have consistently denied motions to waive PACER fees. See e.g., id.; Straw v. 11 Avvo, Inc., No. C20-0294JLR, 2020 WL 1182932, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2020); Meppelink 12 v. Wilmington Savings Fund Soc’y FSB, C19-5655RJB, 2019 WL 7290779, at * 2 (W.D. Wash. 13 Dec. 30, 2019). Plaintiff’s stated justifications of his own inadvertent incurring of charges and 14 IFP status are insufficient to waive costs.

15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to waive PACER fees (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED. 16 Dated this 17th day of October, 2025. 17 a 18 David G. Estudillo 19 United States District Judge

20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jordan Slach v. City of Battle Ground et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-slach-v-city-of-battle-ground-et-al-wawd-2025.