Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 30, 2022

Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:22-cv-06446
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Judge Parker granted a limited PACER-fee exemption and set Defendant’s response deadline.

Who this affects

Woodrow Preacely received a time-limited, litigation-related exemption from PACER access fees; the defendant’s response deadline was October 25, 2022.

What happened

Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is a case brought by Woodrow Preacely against the Department’s Office of Investigations. The order states that the defendant’s deadline to answer or respond to the complaint was October 25, 2022.

Preacely asked to be exempt from fees for accessing the case through the federal court’s online records system, known as PACER. The court found that his alleged indigency together with his mobility impairment made access through a courthouse terminal burdensome.

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the PACER-fee exemption for research connected to this lawsuit from August 30, 2022, through August 29, 2023. The exemption did not cover other PACER uses and did not decide Preacely’s separate request to proceed without paying court costs in advance.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Preacely v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development · No. 1:22-cv-06446
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Aug. 30, 2022

Background

Woodrow Preacely sued the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Investigations. The order states that the defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint was October 25, 2022.

Preacely also requested an exemption from fees charged by PACER, the federal courts’ online system for accessing case files. The court explained that some PACER access is automatically free, including access to judicial opinions, documents viewed at a courthouse public-access terminal, and electronically filed documents in a case accessed by a party. The court also stated that it may grant an additional exemption when necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered Preacely’s allegations that he was indigent and had a mobility impairment. It found that indigency alone generally would not be enough, but that the combination of indigency and the mobility impairment made it burdensome for him to use PACER through the courthouse terminal. The court therefore found that an exemption was necessary.

Ruling

The court ordered that Preacely be exempt from PACER fees for accessing the electronic case files maintained by the court, but only when the access was connected to research in this litigation. The exemption did not cover fees from other PACER uses. Preacely also could not sell for profit or transfer data obtained through the exemption. The exemption was valid from August 30, 2022, through August 29, 2023, and the court retained discretion to revoke it.

The court separately advised Preacely that he could apply to proceed without paying court fees or costs in advance by completing and returning the provided application to the pro se office. The order did not state that this separate application was granted. The clerk was directed to mail copies of the order to the plaintiff, the defendants, and the PACER Service Center.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.