Mondor v. DOC/State
ORDER granting 10 Application on Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal(Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 9/21/2017. (DLO) Modified text on 9/21/2017 (ACH). cc: Mondor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 17-1009(DSD/TNL)
David Michael Mondor,
This matter is before the court upon the application to
proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees by pro se plaintiff
David Michael Mondor.
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.
See also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
To qualify for
IFP status, the litigant must demonstrate that he 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).
Based upon the present IFP application, the court is satisfied
that Mondor is financially eligible for IFP status.
assesses “an initial partial filing fee of twenty percent of the
greater of ... the average monthly deposits to the prisoner’s
account or the average monthly balance in the prisoner’s account
for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the
... notice of appeal.”
Id. § 1915(b)(1).
Mondor’s trust account
preceding six months was $7.50, and his average monthly balance for
the preceding six months was zero dollars.
See ECF No. 10, at 8.
Therefore, the court calculates that Mondor’s initial partial
filing fee is $1.50, plus continuing monthly payments in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
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.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
in this context is judged by an objective standard and not by the
subjective beliefs of the appellant.
369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Coppedge v. United States,
To determine whether an appeal is
taken in good faith, the court must decide whether the claims to be
decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous.
Id. at 445.
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).
Although the court remains fully satisfied that Mondor’s case
was properly dismissed, his 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 § 1915(a)(3),
and the IFP application will be granted.
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Mondor’s application to appeal in forma pauperis [ECF No. 10] is
granted as set forth above.
Dated: September 21, 2017
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?