SEARCY v. AGRICULTURE , No. 13-3175 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-3175 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2013 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ANDREW SEARCY, JR., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. ______________________ 2013-3175 ______________________ Petition for review from the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. AT4324120759-I-1. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ Before RADER, Chief Judge. ORDER Andrew Searcy, Jr. ( Searcy ) applies for an exemption from the user fees associated with electronic access to court records. 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. A small fee is ordinarily required to search and print such Case: 13-3175 Document: 5 2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2013 SEARCY V. AGRICULTURE documents, but the Electronic Public Access Fee Schedule ( Schedule ) carves out a narrow exception to that rule, allowing courts discretion to exempt certain persons or classes of persons from payment. The Schedule makes clear, however, that [c]ourts should not . . . exempt individuals and groups that have the ability to pay the statutorily established access fee. Accordingly, a movant seeking a fee waiver must demonstrate that the exemption is necessary in order to avoid unreasonable burdens and to promote public access to information. Based on the papers submitted, the court is unable to say that Searcy has met this standard as he has not demonstrated the inability to pay the fee. Thus, this court must deny his request. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The application for an exemption from the fees for accessing documents on PACER is denied. FOR THE COURT /s/ Daniel E. O Toole Daniel E. O Toole Clerk s19

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.