Nelson v. Sorrento Tower Apartments

Opinion

WARREN F. NELSON, Case No.: 3:21-cv-01554-RBM-JLB

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR WAIVER OF PACER FEES AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT et al., Defendants. [Docs. 47, 48] On December 4, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Waiver of Pacer Fees (Doc. 47) and a supporting affidavit (Doc. 48). Plaintiff states that he has a balance of $73.80 in PACER fees and requests the Court waive the current balance of PACER fees as well as all future PACER fees. (Doc. 47 at 1–2.) The PACER System acts as a portal to information stored on the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (“CM/ECF”) system. 1 Through CM/ECF, all parties and attorneys of record receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically. In light of this procedure, Plaintiff has not justified the waiver of PACER fees. See Katumbusi v. Gary, No. 2:14-CV-1534 JAM AC,

1 CM/ECF is the Court’s case management systems that maintains the electronic files in 2014 WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2014) (“[e]xemptions from PACER user fees uncommon” and “[i]n forma pauperis status alone does not support a request to waive PACER fees”). To date, Plaintiff should have received a copy of every order issued in this matter. The Court finds that a waiver of PACER fees is neither appropriate nor warranted this time. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Waiver of PACER fees is DENIED. DATE: April 24, 2023 rsdg Wit gps □ HON. RUTH BERMUBEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE