Blackwell v. Social Security
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-01865
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Blackwell v. Social Security, Judge Docherty denied Blackwell’s request to waive current and future PACER fees.
Richard Preston Blackwell’s request for a waiver of current and future PACER fees was denied.
What happened
In Blackwell v. Social Security, pro se plaintiff Richard Preston Blackwell asked the court to waive his current and future fees for accessing records through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system.
Blackwell said he had permission to proceed without paying filing fees and needed future access to opinions, docket reports, and printed documents. The court explained that PACER provides one free electronic access to documents filed and served in a person’s case, waives fees for users who spend less than $30 in a fiscal quarter, and makes court opinions free. The court also said fee exemptions are available when necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access.
The court found that Blackwell had not explained why an exemption was necessary and noted that he had successfully filed several documents. Judge Docherty denied Blackwell’s request for a waiver of his current and future PACER fees.
The detailed version
- Blackwell v. Social Security · No. 0:23-cv-01865
- John Tunheim
- Jan. 16, 2024
Background
Pro se plaintiff Richard Preston Blackwell asked the court to waive his current and future fees for using the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) database. He stated that he had been allowed to proceed without paying court filing fees and that he needed future access to court opinions, docket reports, and printed documents. The opinion states that he provided no legal authority supporting the request.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that PACER charges fees to help maintain the service. It noted that parties receive one free electronic access to documents filed and served in their own case, that PACER fees are waived for users who spend less than $30 in a fiscal quarter, and that court opinions are free. The court also explained that a person may receive a PACER-fee exemption when the person shows that the exemption is necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information. Such exemptions are intended to be exceptions rather than the usual rule.
The court found that Blackwell had not explained why an exemption was necessary. It noted that he did not allege that he had failed to receive notice of filings and had successfully filed several documents, including responses to a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion to dismiss. The court also said his reference to needing access to court opinions suggested that he might not have known that opinions are already free through the court’s electronic filing system.
Ruling
Judge John F. Docherty denied Blackwell’s request for a waiver of his current and future PACER fees. The order did not state that the request was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.