Grenier v. St. Louis County et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 14 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Laura M. Provinzino on 3/5/2025. (TJC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
BARBARA MARY GRENIER,

Case No. 24-cv-4449 (LMP/LIB)

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
ST. LOUIS COUNTY and STATE OF
MINNESOTA,
Defendants.

On January 24, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Barbara Mary Grenier’s
complaint without prejudice after she filed a letter stating that she “[w]ould like to put a
motion in to not go forward with this case, at this time.” ECF No. 8 at 1. At the same time,
the Court dismissed her application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2), as
moot. Shortly thereafter, Grenier filed a letter stating that she did not want voluntarily to
dismiss her case but instead to stay proceedings while she found an attorney. ECF No. 11.
The Court interpreted her letter as requesting that the Court reopen the case under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but nevertheless denied her request. ECF No. 12.
Grenier filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal “everything,” and requested to
proceed IFP on appeal. ECF No. 13. A litigant who seeks IFP status on appeal must first
“file a motion in the district court” and “state[] the issues that the party intends to present
on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The Court must deny IFP status if the appeal is not
taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (a)(3). “To determine whether an appeal is
taken in good faith, the Court must determine whether the claims to be decided on appeal

are factually or legally frivolous.” Smith v. Eischen, No. 23-cv-357 (JRT/DJF), 2024 WL
2818335, at *1 (D. Minn. June 3, 2024) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989)).
Grenier’s appeal is not taken in good faith. Her notice of appeal simply states that
she wants to appeal “everything,” so she has therefore not demonstrated what, if any,
meritorious issues she might bring on appeal. Regardless, even if the Court presumed that
Grenier intended to appeal the dismissal of her case, or the Court’s denial of her request to
reopen the case, the Court can discern no reasonable basis for such an appeal. The Court
dismissed the case without prejudice after Grenier requested to “not go forward with this
case,” and refused to reopen the case simply to stay any proceedings while she sought an
attorney. ECF No. 8 at 1. At no point has Grenier offered the Court a good explanation
for why it should expend additional judicial resources to stay a case that she has no desire
or ability to move forward with at this time. Notably, if Grenier finds an attorney, and
wants to continue with her claims, she can simply file a new complaint. Accordingly, the
Court denies Grenier’s request to proceed IFP on appeal.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Grenier’s application to proceed IFP on appeal (ECF No. 14)
is DENIED.
Dated: March 5, 2025

s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge

2