Santaniella-Townsend v. Arizona Healthcare Cost Containment System

Docket 4:25-cv-00583

Filed: 2025-10-17
Terminated: Not recorded
Case type: cv

Outcome

No sourced outcome is recorded. A termination date alone does not establish who prevailed.

Parties and representation

Party and firm records are not available for this case.

Panel

No sourced panel votes are recorded.

Opinions and documents

Opinion 2026-04-24 · Source
Opinion 2026-04-24 · Source

 WO                                                                   
                                                                      
                                                                      
                                                                      
                                                                      
               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                    
                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA                        

                                                                      

 Theresa Angela Santaniello-Townsend,  No. CV-25-00583-TUC-RCC        

            Plaintiff,              ORDER                             

 v.                                                                   

 Arizona  Healthcare  Cost  Containment                               
    System, et al.,                                                      
                                                                      
               Defendants.                                               
                                                                      
      Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Plaintiff’s Leave to Proceed In Forma 
 Pauperis PACER Fee Exemption. (Doc. 97.) Plaintiff claims she needs free “PACER 
 access to review filings, upload filings, monitor the docket, and comply with court orders 
 and deadlines.” (Id. at 2.) She also claims that paying PACER fees causes undue financial 
 hardship. (Id.)                                                      
      “[T]he in forma pauperis statute does not provide that a court may exempt a litigant 
 from fees associated with PACER.” Luehring v. Los Angeles Cnty., No. 2:21-CV-01426-
 GW-SHK, 2021 WL 4533275, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2021) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). 
 And so, “[i]n forma pauperis status alone does not support a request to waive PACER fees.” 
 Katumbusi v. Gary, No. 2:14-CV-1534 JAM AC, 2014 WL 5698816, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 
 30, 2014); see also Oliva v. Brookwood Coram I, LLC, No. 14-CV-2513 (JMA)(AYS), 
 2015 WL 1966357, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2015) (“[A] party seeking a discretionary 
 exemption [of PACER fees] cannot rely on his in forma pauperis status alone.” (quotations 
 and citations omitted)).                                             
        The Court is cognizant of Plaintiff’s IFP status, current housing difficulties,  and 
|    financial  strain.  However,  in  several  instances the use  of PACER is  free.  Parties  may 
  □□  receive free notices of docket activity and court opinions and may access PACER for free 
       from any federal courthouse. https://pacer.uscourts.gov/pacer-pricing-how-fees-work (last 
  ||  visited April 23, 2026). Plaintiff may receive one free electronic copy of all documents 
|    filed  in  her  case.  “Plaintiff's  Motion  does  not  suggest  any  reason  why  he  should  be 
  ||  exempted from payment of PACER fees other than Plaintiff's desire to avoid paying fees.” 
||  Luehring, 2021 WL 4533275, at *2. 
        IT IS  ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma 
  ||  Pauperis Pacer Fee Exemption without prejudice. (Doc. 97.) 
        Dated this 24th day of April, 2026. 

                                                  , 4] 
                                               fy     pL 
                                                    N-       
                                                 Honorable Raner ©.  Collins 
                                           senior United States District Judge 













                                          -2-

Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.