Ryan Keith Pogue v. Hennepin County, Minnesota
- Dulce Foster
- 0:26-cv-02115
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Pogue v. Hennepin County, Magistrate Judge Foster denied plaintiff Ryan Pogue's request for a PACER fee exemption, finding he had not shown the exemption was necessary to avoid an unreasonable burden.
Pro se litigants who have disabled PACER accounts due to unpaid fee balances and seek fee exemptions for remote electronic access to court filings. This ruling clarifies that financial hardship, cognitive disability, and transportation difficulties, without a concrete showing of inability to access case documents, are insufficient to compel a PACER fee waiver.
What happened
In Pogue v. Hennepin County, Minnesota (Case No. 26-cv-2115), plaintiff Ryan Pogue, who is representing himself, asked the federal court for a limited exemption from fees charged by PACER — the online system federal courts use to provide public access to court records. Pogue said his PACER account was disabled due to an unpaid balance, and he sought a waiver based on his limited finances, a cognitive disability affecting his ability to handle complex legal proceedings, and transportation difficulties that made trips to the courthouse burdensome.
The court applied the standard that a PACER fee exemption should be the exception, not the rule, and may only be granted when the person seeking it shows the exemption is necessary to avoid an unreasonable burden and to promote public access to information. The court found that Pogue had been actively participating in the case since filing his complaint, had not shown he was actually unable to access court filings, and retained limited free access even with a disabled account — including one free look at each document in his own case and free access to judicial opinions. The court also noted that a free public access terminal is available at the courthouse.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied Pogue's motion for a PACER fee waiver. The order was issued on August 13, 2026.
The detailed version
- Ryan Keith Pogue v. Hennepin County, Minnesota · No. 0:26-cv-02115
- Dulce J. Foster
- Aug. 13, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Ryan Keith Pogue, who is representing himself (proceeding pro se), filed a Motion for Limited PACER Fee Exemption and Effective Electronic Access (ECF No. 21). PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) is the federal courts' online system that allows the public and litigants to access court filings remotely, typically for a per-page fee. Pogue's PACER account had been disabled due to an outstanding fee balance, and he sought a limited exemption so he could access filings in this litigation without charge.
Pogue's Arguments
Pogue offered several reasons in support of his request (ECF No. 23 at 2): - He is representing himself without an attorney. - He has limited financial resources. - He has a cognitive disability that affects his ability to manage complex litigation processes. - He has transportation limitations that make repeated in-person trips to the courthouse — where PACER can be accessed free of charge at a public terminal — difficult.
Legal Standard
The court applied the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule implemented by the U.S. federal courts, which permits courts to grant fee exemptions but specifies that exemptions should be "the exception, not the rule." Citing Walker v. Shafer, No. 16-cv-5121 (JLV), 2018 WL 813420 (D.S.D. Feb. 9, 2018), the court stated that to justify an exemption, the requesting party must demonstrate that it is "necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information." The court also noted, citing Button v. Breshears, No. 1:24-cv-03757-MKV, 2025 WL 327926 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2025), that having previously been granted permission to proceed without prepaying court filing fees (commonly called in forma pauperis status) is by itself insufficient to establish that PACER fees should be waived.
Court's Analysis
The court identified four reasons why Pogue had not met the standard for a fee exemption:
1. Active participation: Pogue had been participating in the case since filing his complaint in April 2026, submitting numerous filings, which suggested he had not been effectively shut out of the litigation.
2. No showing of inability to access filings: Pogue made no specific showing that he had actually been unable to access court documents in this matter.
3. Residual free access: Even with a disabled account, Pogue retains the right to one free look at each electronically filed document in cases where he is a party, and free access to judicial opinions. The court cited Moore v. St. Paul Police Dep't, No. 24-cv-0789 (PJS/JFD), 2024 WL 1557772 (D. Minn. Apr. 10, 2024), and Rouzard v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-2233-CEM-DCI, 2025 WL 1918903 (M.D. Fla. July 10, 2025), in support.
4. Courthouse terminal: The court makes a public-access terminal available free of charge for use during courthouse visits.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Foster denied Pogue's Motion for Limited PACER Fee Exemption and Effective Electronic Access (ECF No. 21).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.