Hall v. Ramsey County et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 56 Application on Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on August 26, 2014. (JRC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-1915(DSD/LIB)
Marc Hall,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Ramsey County; Eric Earl Anderson,
individually and in his official
capacity; Roy Irving, individually
and in his official capacity; Melissa
Jimenez, individually and in her
official capacity and Jodi Leifeld,
individually and in her official capacity,
Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the application of
plaintiff Marc Hall to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) before the
Eighth Circuit.
A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee
for an appeal may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

See

To qualify for IFP status, the

litigant must demonstrate that he or she cannot afford to pay the
full filing fee.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Even if a litigant is

found to be indigent, however, IFP status will be denied if the
court finds that the litigant’s appeal is not taken in “good
faith.”

Id. § 1915(a)(3).

Good faith in this context is judged by

an objective standard and not by the subjective beliefs of the
appellant. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
To determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the court

must

decide

whether

the

claims

to

factually or legally frivolous.

be

decided

on

Id. at 445.

appeal

are

An appeal is

frivolous, and therefore cannot be taken in good faith, “where it
lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”

Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Here, Hall’s IFP application indicates that his only monthly
income is $1103.00 in disability assistance.

ECF No. 56, at 2.

The application also indicates that Hall has $8.00 in a bank
account and no other assets that could be used to pay the filing
fee and costs for his appeal.

As a result, the court finds that

Hall is financially eligible for IFP status.
Although the court remains fully satisfied that this action
was properly dismissed, Hall’s appeal is not “frivolous” as that
term has been defined by the Supreme Court.

As a result, the

appeal is considered to be taken “in good faith” for purposes of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

application to proceed IFP [ECF No. 56] is granted.
Dated:

August 26, 2014
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

2