DUARTE
v.
RIVERA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for an exemption from PACER fees.
The plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, sought an exemption from PACER fees. The plaintiff alleged indigence as the basis for the exemption.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Abraham Duarte sues several defendants “for violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) According to the complaint, Plaintiff was falsely arrested and charged with drug possession after a traffic stop. (Id.)
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Exemption from Payment of PACER Fees. (Doc. 16.) PACER, which stands for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, is a court system service that provides electronic access to
case and docket information. For the reasons below, Plaintiffs motion is
DENIED.
Although the Court has granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, that only exempts him from the prepayment of certain fees and costs. For an exemption from PACER fees, Plaintiff must show "that an exemption is necessary in order to: (1) avoid unreasonable burden; and (2) promote public access to information.” Rigby v. Cap. One Fin. Corp., No. 3:24- CV-98-HES-MCR, 2025 WL 556426, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2025). Exemptions from PACER fees are the exception, not the rule.
Plaintiff alleges that an exemption is necessary because he is indigent. But the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis is not enough to demonstrate an unreasonable burden. McNeal v. Coleman, No. 5:19-CV-50, 2020 WL 4677525, at *5 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2020). That is because the PACER fee schedule already contains generous automatic fee exemptions. Plaintiff is entitled to a free copy of all documents filed in this case and can freely access any judicial opinion. See https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/fees/ electronic-public-access-fee-schedule. Plaintiff does not owe any PACER fees if he “accrues charges of more than $30.00 in a quarterly billing cycle." Id. And, most important of all, Plaintiff has free PACER access at a courthouse terminal. Id. Because Plaintiff did not explain why the automatic fee exemptions are insufficient to alleviate any particular burden he faces, his
request must be denied. See, e.g., Hatcher v. G-P Wood & Fiber Supply, LLC, No. 3:07-CV-080-JTC, 2008 WL 11343393, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 6, 2008).
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 16, 2025.
Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge