Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 28, 2025

Strege v. Minnesota Supreme Court

Judge
Paul Magnuson
Docket
0:24-cv-04621
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Strege v. Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge Magnuson denied Strege’s applications to appeal without paying fees because the appeal was not taken in good faith.

Who this affects

Adam Strege’s ability to pursue an appeal without prepaying fees, costs, or security.

What happened

In Strege v. Minnesota Supreme Court, Adam Strege asked to appeal without paying court fees. The court reviewed his financial affidavits and found that he financially qualified for that status.

The court nevertheless found that the appeal was not taken in good faith. It relied on its earlier dismissal of Strege’s complaint, which the court said was indecipherable and did not state any legal claim.

Judge Paul A. Magnuson denied Strege’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. The court said any appeal would be frivolous because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Strege v. Minnesota Supreme Court · No. 0:24-cv-04621
Judge
Paul Magnuson
Date
Jan. 28, 2025

Background

Adam Strege filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, meaning he asked to pursue an appeal without prepaying fees, costs, or security. The applications were docketed as Nos. 8 and 12.

Court’s analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may allow a person to proceed without prepaying those amounts based on an affidavit showing an inability to pay, the nature of the appeal, and the person’s belief that he is entitled to relief. The court must deny that status if the appeal was not taken in good faith. The court explained that good faith is judged objectively and that an appeal is not taken in good faith when it is factually or legally frivolous.

The court reviewed Strege’s affidavits and found that he financially qualified for in forma pauperis status. But the court concluded that it could not find that the appeal was taken in good faith. It referred to its earlier dismissal of the case, stating that Strege’s complaint was indecipherable and fell far short of alleging any legal claim. The court therefore characterized any appeal as frivolous, lacking an arguable basis in law or fact.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Magnuson DENIED Strege’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal, Docket Nos. 8 and 12.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.