Bauer v. Williston, City of et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Christopher Michael Bauer, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
City of Williston, Tyler Wold, Rowan 	)
Horswill, 	) 	Case No. 1:24-cv-223
)
Defendants. 	)
Plaintiff requests that the court allow him to access court records using the Public Access
to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) database. (Doc. No. 14). Additionally, he requests that
the court allow him to use CM/ECF, the court’s electronic filing system, to upload and file
documents directly from his computer to the court’s case file. (Id.). In support of these requests,
he states that he was granted leave in this action to proceed in forma pauperis, is “unable to bear the
costs associated with local courts requiring mailings through the United States Postal System
(USPS);” and “face[s] significant challenges in accessing physical court records and in complying
with deadlines that rely on traditional mail service” due to his location and “ongoing instability in
the mail system in Williston, North Dakota.” (Id.).
Bauer does not require the court’s permission to access PACER. Anyone can access PACER
to view federal court records provided that they register for a PACER account. See Frequently
Asked Questions, PACER, https://pacer.uscourts.gov/help/ faqs/registration (lasted visited Feb. 13,
2024). There is no fee to register for a PACER account. See Options to Access Records if you
Cannot Afford PACER Fees, PACER, https://pacer.uscourts.gov/my-account-billing/billing/options
-access-records-if-you-cannot-afford-pacer-fees. As there is nothing currently preventing Bauer
1
Case 1:24-cv-00223-DLH-CRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/25 Page 1 of 4

from registering for a PACER account and accessing PACER, his request for PACER access is
deemed MOOT.
PACER does charge user fees to cover the costs of maintaining the service. 	Walker v.
Shafer, No. 16-CV-5121 (JLV), 2018 WL 813420, at *3 (D.S.D. Feb. 9, 2018); Frequently Asked
Questions, PACER, https://pacer.uscourts.gov/help/faqs/top-faqs (last visited Feb. 13, 2025).
PACER fees are waived for any user who spends less than $30 in a fiscal quarter. Electronic Public
Access Fee Schedule, supra (“No fee is owed for electronic access to court data or audio files via
PACER until an account holder accrues charges of more than $30.00 in a quarterly billing cycle.”).
All court opinions are free. Id.
Courts may relieve a person from paying the PACER charges in instances where the person
has “demonstrated that an exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to
promote 	public 	access 	to 	information[.]” 	Electronic 	Public 	Access 	Fee 	Schedule, 	supra
(“[E]xemptions should be granted as the exception, not the rule.”); Walker, 2018 WL 813420, at *3.
Here, Bauer has failed to establish that exemption is necessary in this case. He does not allege that
he has failed to receive notice of filings. He has successfully filed several documents on this court's
docket—including 	an 	amended 	complaint 	in 	response 	to 	the 	court’s 	order 	to 	show
cause—suggesting that he can continue to litigate this case without a waiver. 	See Hunter v.
Bradford, No. 4:14-CV-00613-KGB, 2014 WL 12691604, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10, 2014) (finding
no waiver necessary when pro se plaintiff did not allege that she lacked access to filings and had
successfully submitted documents to the court); Lindsay v. Preuss, No. 21-CV-11006 (PAE/KHP),
2023 WL 3998056, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2023) (recommending a finding of no error when
bankruptcy judge refused to provide an exemption to party who did not “show why the standard
2
Case 1:24-cv-00223-DLH-CRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/25 Page 2 of 4

PACER fee exemptions were insufficient.”), R&R adopted, 2023 WL 3996865 (S.D.N.Y. June 14,
2023); see also Button v. Breshears, No. 1:24-CV-03757-MKV, 2025 WL 327926, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 29, 2025) (“Even if Plaintiffs had been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action,
that would be insufficient to establish that their PACER fees should be waived. . . . Instead, the party
must demonstrate that an exemption beyond the automatic exemptions is necessary ... to avoid
unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information.” (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)); Pina v. New York State Gaming Comm'n, No. 24-CV-5383 (LTS), 2024 WL
3565780, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2024) (“A party seeking a discretionary exemption cannot solely
rely on his IFP status alone.”). The phrasing of his request also suggests that he was not aware of
the exemptions that are already part of the CM/ECF fee structure. 	Thus, insofar as he may be
requesting to be relieved from paying the PACER charges, his request is DENIED. The court will
now turn to address his request for leave to file electronically through CM/ECF.
It is not axiomatic indigent litigants will be permitted to electronically file documents with
the court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B) provides in relevant part that a“[a] person not
represented by an attorney . . . may file electronically only if allowed by court order or by local
rule.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3)(B)(i). Some courts may have local rules permitting pro se litigants
to file electronically. However, this court’s local rules make no such provision.
This court’s local rules incorporate by reference the Administrative Policy Governing
Electronic Filing and Service. D.N.D. Civ. L. 5.1(A). This policy in turn provides that a “pro se
party may not register to use the [electronic case filing] system.” Administrative Policy Governing
Electronic Filing and Service at p. 1, https://www.ndd.uscourts.gov/ ecf/cm_ecf_policy.pdf. This
means that Bauer is not permitted to file electronically in this district.
3
Case 1:24-cv-00223-DLH-CRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/25 Page 3 of 4

Bauer’s concerns regarding the costs of postage and his ability to timely file documents
conventionally by sending them through the mail are specious. See e.g., Robinson v. Section 23
Prop. Owner's Ass'n, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-888-FTM-38CM, 2017 WL 1929662, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May
10, 2017) (finding a pro se plaintiff’s claim to have expended funds he did not have on postage did
not constitute good cause to allow him to file electronically). First, Bauer’s assertion that he may
not be able to meet deadlines if required to rely on the United States Postal Service is at best
speculative. Second, Bauer has demonstrated an ability to comply with deadlines as evidenced by
his timely submission of an amended complaint in response to the court’s order to show cause.
Third, the record reflects that the cost of postage has not been an impediment to Bauer’s ability to
access the court. 	Finally, Bauer has not provided any authority for the proposition that pro se
litigants allowed to proceed in forma pauperis must be permitted to file electronically. Bauer’s
request for leave to file electronically via CM/ECF is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of February, 2025.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
4
Case 1:24-cv-00223-DLH-CRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/25 Page 4 of 4