Sattar v. Hennepin Health Care System
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:25-cv-00798
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Sattar v. Hennepin Health Care System, Judge Magnuson denied Sattar’s request to appeal without prepaying fees because the appeal was not taken in good faith.
Moutazbillah Abdul Sattar’s ability to proceed with his appeal without prepaying court fees and costs.
What happened
In Moutazbillah Abdul Sattar v. Hennepin Health Care System, Sattar asked to appeal without paying court fees in advance.
The court said an appeal cannot proceed without advance fees when it is not taken in good faith. It found that the appeal had no reasonable basis because the complaint was filed too late and did not state a claim for relief.
Judge Paul A. Magnuson therefore denied Sattar’s application to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal.
The detailed version
- Sattar v. Hennepin Health Care System · No. 0:25-cv-00798
- Paul Magnuson
- Mar. 24, 2025
Background
Moutazbillah Abdul Sattar filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs for his appeal. The opinion identifies the underlying defendant as Hennepin Health Care System.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court may allow a party who says they cannot pay litigation costs to proceed without prepaying them. The court must deny that status if the appeal was not taken in good faith. The opinion explains that good faith is judged objectively and that an appeal is not taken in good faith when it is legally or factually frivolous, meaning it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
The court stated that it had dismissed Sattar’s matter because his complaint was untimely and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Based on that earlier dismissal, the court could not conclude that Sattar’s appeal was taken in good faith.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that Sattar’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal, docket number 6, was DENIED. The opinion does not provide additional details about the underlying claims or the basis for finding the complaint untimely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.