Fredin v. Miller et al

Filing 228

ORDER denying 207 Application on Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 11/30/2020. (SMD)

CASE 0:18-cv-00466-SRN-HB Doc. 228 Filed 11/30/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No. 17-CV-3058 (SRN/HB)

Brock Fredin,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Lindsey Middlecamp,
Defendant.

Brock Fredin,

Case No. 18-CV-0466 (SRN/HB)
Plaintiff,

v.
Grace Elizabeth Miller and Catherine
Marie Schaefer,
Defendants.

These matters are before the Court on the motions of plaintiff Brock Fredin to
proceed on appeal without payment of the appellate filing fees. See Case No. 17-CV3058, Doc. No. 239; Case No. 18-CV-0466, Doc. No. 207. Fredin was granted in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) status before this Court in the first of these lawsuits. See Case No. 17CV-3058, Doc. No. 6. Accordingly, he may proceed IFP on appeal without further
authorization. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). To make clear that Rule 24(a)(3) authorizes

1

CASE 0:18-cv-00466-SRN-HB Doc. 228 Filed 11/30/20 Page 2 of 3

Fredin to proceed without payment of the filing fee in that matter, Fredin’s motion in that
case will be granted.
In the second lawsuit, however, Fredin did not request IFP status before this Court,
instead electing to pay the filing fee for that lawsuit. Because Rule 24(a)(3) does not
apply to that case, Fredin therefore must establish his current financial eligibility for IFP
status before being permitted to proceed without payment of the appellate filing fee in
that matter. He has not done so. Fredin is coy about his current income in the declaration
accompanying his motion, but he does state that he made “[m]ost of” his $26,000 income
for 2019 in the months of November and December, Fredin Decl. ¶ 6 [ECF No. 209],
suggesting that his income during those two months (the most recent months for which
Fredin has provided information about his income) was significant. This is consistent
with Fredin’s prior deposition testimony, in which he stated that he regained employment
in November 2019 and, at the time of the deposition, earned a yearly income of
$160,000. See Breyer Decl. Ex. A at 5-6 [ECF No. 141-1]. Fredin offers no reason for
the Court to believe that he no longer earns this income. And with that income, which
amounts to more than twelve times the poverty guideline for a single individual, Fredin
can reasonably be expected to pay the appellate filing fee in this matter, notwithstanding
his liabilities. Accordingly, Fredin’s motion to proceed without payment of the appellate
filing fee is denied in the second matter.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
2

CASE 0:18-cv-00466-SRN-HB Doc. 228 Filed 11/30/20 Page 3 of 3

1.

The motion of plaintiff Brock Fredin to proceed without payment of the
appellate filing fee in Fredin v. Middlecamp, No. 17-CV-3058 [Doc.
No. 239] is GRANTED.

2.

Fredin’s motion to proceed without payment of the appellate filing fee in
Fredin v. Miller, No. 18-CV-0466 [Doc. No. 207] is DENIED.
s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

Dated: November 30, 2020

3