Chima v. Perkins
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-06385
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Chima v. Perkins, Judge Hixson denied Chima’s request to waive PACER fees because existing free access and modest charges made exemption unnecessary.
Chikodi Chima’s request for a PACER-fee exemption was denied. He remains entitled to the free electronic copies and other fee-free access described in the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule, and the court stated that he may apply for a waiver if he later accrues more than $30 in PACER charges during a quarterly billing cycle.
What happened
In Chima v. Perkins, Chikodi Chima asked the court to waive fees for accessing federal court records through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system, citing financial hardship. The opinion states that Chima had already been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court explained that PACER already provides one free electronic copy of documents filed electronically, does not charge for viewing judicial opinions, and generally charges modest fees for other access. The court also noted that Chima had not shown an outstanding PACER balance or why a waiver was necessary to pursue the case.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Chima’s motion for a PACER-fee exemption. The court noted that Chima could apply for a waiver if he later accrued more than $30 in PACER charges during a quarterly billing cycle.
The detailed version
- Chima v. Perkins · No. 3:25-cv-06385
- Thomas Hixson
- Aug. 1, 2025
Background
Chikodi Chima moved to waive fees for accessing the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. He argued that a waiver was warranted because he was a single father experiencing financial hardship related to the allegations in his complaint. The opinion states that Chima had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
Court’s Analysis
The court described the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule. Parties and attorneys of record receive one free electronic copy, through the electronic filing or docket-activity notice, of documents filed electronically. PACER charges $0.10 per page for other access, with a $3 cap for a single document. Judicial opinions can be viewed without charge, and court records can be viewed at courthouse public-access terminals without charge.
The Fee Schedule permits discretionary exemptions when an exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information. The court found that Chima had not clearly explained why he needed PACER access beyond the access already provided by the Fee Schedule. It also stated that permission to proceed without paying filing fees, by itself, does not authorize exemption from PACER fees and does not establish that those fees impose an unreasonable burden.
The court further noted that Chima had not shown any outstanding PACER balance or provided a justification for the requested exemption. Because PACER already provides automatic exemptions and the fees are modest, the court found that Chima had not made the required showing for a discretionary exemption.
Disposition
Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Chima’s motion for an exemption from payment of PACER fees. The court stated that Chima could apply for a fee waiver if he later accrued more than $30 in PACER charges during a quarterly billing cycle.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.