Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program, the et al

Filing 114

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL 102 . (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on 6/26/2023. (KKM)

CASE 0:13-cv-01074-JRT-DJF Doc. 114 Filed 06/26/23 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
HOLLIS J. LARSON,
Civil No. 13-1074 (JRT/DJF)
Plaintiff,
v.
THE MINNESOTA SEX OFFENDER
PROGRAM et al.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON
APPEAL

Defendants.

Hollis J. Larson, MSOP, 1111 Highway 73, Moose Lake, MN 55767, pro se
plaintiff.
Benjamin C. Johnson, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, 445
Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55101, for
Defendants.
Plaintiff Hollis J. Larson is civilly committed under the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program (“MSOP”). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Larson is suing the MSOP and its staff
for various forms of maltreatment at the facility. (See Compl. at 3, 42–46, May 6, 2013,
Docket No. 1.) Larson moved for the appointment of counsel. (Mot. Appoint Counsel,
July 13, 2022, Docket No. 20.)
Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster determined that Larson’s Amended Complaint
alleges a colorable basis for relief and granted Larson’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) in the district court action. (See Order Den. Appointment of Counsel at
3, Dec. 1, 2022, Docket No. 32.) In the same order, the Magistrate Judge denied Larson’s

CASE 0:13-cv-01074-JRT-DJF Doc. 114 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 3

Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Id. at 4.) Larson appealed but the Court affirmed the
Magistrate Judge’s order denying appointment of counsel. (See Mem. Op. and Order,
May 16, 2023, Docket No. 100.) Larson has now appealed the Court’s decision to the
Eighth Circuit and seeks to proceed with IFP status.
A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal in a
federal case may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The in forma pauperis
statute has been applied to prisoner and non-prisoner cases alike. See Nichole K. v.
Comm’r of Social Security, No. 19-1662, 2019 WL 3037087, at *1, n.1 (D. Minn. July 11,
2019). To qualify for IFP status, the litigant must demonstrate that they cannot afford to
pay the full filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
A party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal must file a motion in
district court. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The “prior approval” clause allows a party that was
permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court action to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal without further authorization. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Therefore,
Larson does not need further approval to proceed in forma pauperis, unless the Court
determines his “appeal is not taken in good faith.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Because Larson’s appeal is in good faith, the prior approval clause
permits Larson to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and his application is granted.

-2-

CASE 0:13-cv-01074-JRT-DJF Doc. 114 Filed 06/26/23 Page 3 of 3

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Larson’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [Docket
No. 102] is GRANTED.

DATED: June 26, 2023
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

-3-