Altamirano v. Arizona Board of Regents

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Ulysses Altamirano,
Plaintiff,
v.
Arizona Board of Regents,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-02257-PHX-JJT
ORDER
At issue is pro se Plaintiff Ulysses Altamirano’s Motion for Exemption from
PACER Fees (Doc. 36, Mot.). For the reasons below, the Court denies the Motion without
prejudice.
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system allows users to
“view and print case filings, judicial opinions, and other docket information from the
federal trial, bankruptcy, and appellate courts.” In re Gollan, 728 F.3d 1033, 1035 (9th Cir.
2013). Fees paid by users support PACER, and those fees are set by the Judicial Conference
of the United States. Id. The Judicial Conference establishes fee exemptions to promote
public access to the courts. Id. The published fee schedule sets forth several automatic
exemptions, including that Plaintiff will receive one free electronic copy of all documents
filed electronically and can view judicial opinions for free. See Electronic Public Access
Fee Schedule, U.S. Cts. (Jan. 1, 2020), https://www.uscourts.gov/court-
programs/fees/electronic-public-access-fee-schedule. If Plaintiff chooses to access other
court records through PACER, that access is free at any courthouse public access terminal
Case 2:25-cv-02257-JJT Document 39 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or is charged at $0.10 per page up to $3.00 per document. Id. The first $30.00 of PACER
access over a quarterly billing cycle is free. Id.
The fee schedule also provides for discretionary fee exemptions for indigent
litigants. A party seeking an exemption from PACER fees must demonstrate “that an
exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public
access to information.” See U.S. Cts., supra. “[E]xemptions should be granted as the
exception, not the rule.” Id. The fact that a party was granted in forma pauperis status is
insufficient on its own to establish that an exemption is necessary. Chima v. Perkins, No.
25-cv-06385-TSH, 2025 LX 380495, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2025); Bell v. OC 405
Partners, No. 8:22-cv-01095-AH-(DFM), 2025 LX 448694, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2025).
Here, Plaintiff “reasonably anticipates that litigation of this case—particularly one
involving multiple defendants, amended pleadings, and motion practice—will require
repeated docket access exceeding that threshold.” (Mot. ¶ 9.) However, Plaintiff does not
state that he exceeded the automatic fee exemptions and is, thus, currently burdened by
PACER fees such that an exemption is necessary. He also offers no support showing that
he will exceed the automatic fee exemptions in the future. Courts in this circuit have
required substantiation, such as an unpaid PACER balance or the frequency of previous
PACER use, before such fees were waived for litigants. See Chima, 2025 LX 380495 at
*3–4 (collecting cases). Plaintiff’s request for PACER fee exemption is speculative and he
fails to establish an unreasonable burden considering the extensive automatic fee
exemptions. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice, meaning Plaintiff
may request a fee exemption in the future should the need materialize.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Exemption from PACER Fees
(Doc. 36) without prejudice.
Dated this 17th day of December, 2025.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02257-JJT Document 39 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 2