Waheed v. Rentoulis
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-06476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Waheed v. Rentoulis, Judge Ricardo denied Sehra Waheed’s request for a PACER-fee exemption without prejudice because free access options already existed.
Sehra Waheed, whose request for an additional exemption from PACER user fees was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Waheed v. Rentoulis, Sehra Waheed asked the court to exempt her from paying fees to access the federal court’s online records system, PACER. She had previously requested the same relief, and the court had denied it while allowing her to renew the request if she later showed a need.
The court explained that Waheed already receives one free electronic copy of each document filed in the case and email notices of docket activity. She can also use public-access terminals at the courthouse and view up to $30 in PACER charges per quarter from home without a charge. The court found that her status as someone unable to pay court filing fees, by itself, was not enough to justify an additional exemption.
Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo denied Waheed’s motion without prejudice, meaning the motion could be renewed. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion as denied.
The detailed version
- Waheed v. Rentoulis · No. 1:24-cv-06476
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 10, 2025
Background
On April 2, 2025, Sehra Waheed moved for an exemption from PACER user fees. She had previously requested a waiver, which the court denied without prejudice to renewal if she later demonstrated a need for it.
Legal standard and reasoning
The court explained that the Judicial Conference’s PACER fee schedule provides automatic exemptions. These include one free electronic copy of each document filed electronically for parties who receive an electronic filing notice, access to case information and documents through courthouse public-access terminals, and up to $30 in home-access charges per quarter without a fee. The fee schedule also allows courts to grant additional discretionary exemptions in limited circumstances when necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information.
The court stated that a party’s status as unable to pay court filing fees, by itself, does not establish entitlement to a discretionary PACER exemption. Waheed did not provide information beyond that status explaining why free PACER access was necessary or why she would face an unreasonable burden without it. The court also pointed to her numerous filings as evidence that she could review docket documents and respond to them. Because she receives electronic service of documents and could use courthouse public-access terminals, the court found that an additional exemption was not necessary.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo denied without prejudice Waheed’s motion for an exemption from PACER user fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 112 as denied. The order addressed PACER access fees and did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.