A dispute over federal court record access has escalated as a disabled, indigent litigant alleges that excessive fees and threatened account suspension by the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system jeopardize his ability to participate in active civil rights cases. The amended complaint was filed by Timothy Williams on March 23, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the United States of America.
According to the filing, Williams maintains five civil rights lawsuits in the Houston Division—cases numbered 4:25-CV-06252, 4:25-CV-03027, 4:25-CV-02751, 4:25-CV-02921, and 4:25-CV-02905—and relies entirely on PACER and its companion Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system for monitoring dockets, making filings, and meeting deadlines. Despite having been granted in forma pauperis (IFP) status due to indigence and disability in one of these cases (No. 4:25-cv-03027), Williams reports that PACER refused to exempt him from fees and issued a delinquency notice threatening to cut off his access unless he paid $215.10 by March 6, 2026.
The complaint states that on February 17, 2026, the PACER Service Center sent Williams a notice reading: “further access to PACER will be denied. This will be your only reminder.” Williams contends this action disregards his prior requests for fee waivers as well as existing IFP orders from the court. He argues that losing access would endanger all five pending cases with potential dismissal due to inability to file or respond electronically.
Williams’s legal arguments are organized into five counts. First, he claims illegal exaction under the Little Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2)), arguing that PACER assesses fees beyond what is authorized by law. He cites provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002 limiting such fees to amounts necessary for dissemination costs only and references past litigation—including National Veterans Legal Services Program v. United States—that found PACER had unlawfully diverted funds for unrelated projects such as courtroom technology upgrades.
Second, Williams asserts violations of his First Amendment rights by alleging that paywalls and threatened disabling of his account deny him meaningful access to petition courts—a right especially critical for indigent litigants like himself who depend on fee waivers.
Third, invoking sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 794, 794d), Williams alleges discrimination based on disability because he is being denied accessible federal information technology resources necessary for participation in his legal proceedings.
Fourth, he accuses PACER operations of deceptive practices and fraud through flawed billing methods—specifically pointing out how HTML docket reports are billed based on data size rather than actual page count—which he says results in systematic overcharging without disclosure or correction. He references Fisher v. United States as exposing errors where users were charged up to fifty-one percent more than owed.
Finally, Williams claims obstruction and retaliation because he believes threats to cut off his electronic access target him specifically while he pursues government-challenging suits pro se.
As relief from the court, Williams seeks $12.5 million in compensatory damages ($2.5 million per count), $10 million in punitive damages, a declaration finding PACER’s practices unlawful under relevant statutes and constitutional provisions, a permanent injunction requiring fee-free access for his account (No. 8337145), cancellation of all outstanding balances owed to PACER by him, costs including attorneys’ fees if allowable despite representing himself pro se, and any other relief deemed just by the court.
The amended complaint was signed by Timothy Williams acting pro se at an address listed as 9701 Market St., Apt. 328 in Houston on March 20, 2026. No attorney or judge names appear explicitly within this document text; it is identified as Case No. 4:26-cv-02311.
Source: 426cv02311_Timothy_Williams_v_United_States_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
