Akosua Aaebo-Akhan v. Sarah Connell, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas overruled Plaintiff Akosua Aaebo-Akhan’s objection to a magistrate judge’s denial of her request for a PACER fee exemption. The court held that Plaintiff had not shown the magistrate judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law and that arguments raised for the first time in the objection were waived.

Holdings

1. The magistrate judge's denial of the PACER fee-exemption request was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law because Plaintiff did not establish that an exemption was necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information.
2. Plaintiff waived her argument that she lacked access to documents because a third party retained them by failing to present that argument to the magistrate judge.
3. Although Plaintiff's pro se filings were liberally construed, the court would not supply additional factual allegations or construct a legal theory on her behalf.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge's denial of Plaintiff's request for a PACER fee exemption was clearly erroneous or contrary to law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).
2. Whether Plaintiff's argument concerning documents allegedly retained by a third party was waived because it was raised for the first time in her objection.
3. Whether Plaintiff's pro se and in forma pauperis status, together with her asserted inability to carry documents, established that a PACER fee exemption was necessary to avoid unreasonable burdens and promote public access to information.

Disposition

other