Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program, the et al

Filing 132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal 125 . (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge John R Tunheim on 3/25/2024. (KKM)

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, St. Paul, MN 55401, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Hollis J. Larson is civilly committed under the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program (“MSOP”). Larson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
MSOP and its staff for various forms of maltreatment at the facility. (See Am. Compl. at
3, 43–47, Nov. 10, 2022, Docket No. 30.) After the Court granted Larson’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending MSOP’s motion to dismiss be granted and the
action be dismissed with prejudice. (R. & R. at 31, Aug. 3, 2023, Docket No. 117.) The
Court adopted the R&R and dismissed Larson’s Amended Complaint with prejudice.
(Order Adopting R. & R. at 21, Feb. 6, 2024, Docket No. 123.) Larson has appealed the

Court’s decision to the Eighth Circuit and now seeks to proceed IFP on appeal. (Mot. for
Leave to Appeal IFP, Feb. 16, 2024, Docket No. 125.)
A party that seeks to proceed IFP 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 IFP in the district court action to proceed IFP on appeal without further
authorization. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Because Larson was permitted to proceed IFP in
the district court action, he does not need further approval to proceed IFP unless the
Court determines his “appeal is not taken in good faith.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A).
Because Larson’s appeal is taken in good faith, Larson may proceed IFP on appeal, and his
application will be granted.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [Docket
No. 125] is GRANTED.

DATED: March 25, 2024
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

-2-