Nelson v. American Modern Insurance Group
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:23-cv-00525
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Nelson v. American Modern Insurance Group, Judge Provinzino denied as moot Nelson’s request for appeal-related IFP status because he already had that status.
Alexander Nelson’s ability to proceed in his appeal without obtaining additional IFP authorization; the ruling did not prevent him from continuing the appeal IFP.
What happened
In Nelson v. American Modern Insurance Group, the court had previously granted summary judgment to American Modern and dismissed the case with prejudice. Nelson appealed and applied to proceed without paying the usual court costs.
Because Nelson had already been allowed to proceed without paying those costs in the district court, the court said he could continue doing so on appeal unless it certified that his appeal was not made in good faith. The court viewed his appeals concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act as frivolous, but it said his appeal concerning the Minnesota Human Rights Act was not completely frivolous.
Judge Provinzino therefore declined to certify that the appeal was not made in good faith and denied Nelson’s application as moot. The ruling does not prevent Nelson from proceeding with his appeal under the existing status.
The detailed version
- Nelson v. American Modern Insurance Group · No. 0:23-cv-00525
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Apr. 10, 2025
Background
On March 26, 2025, the court granted American Modern Insurance Group, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment against Alexander Nelson and dismissed the case with prejudice. Nelson filed a notice of appeal and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. IFP status allows a party who qualifies to proceed without paying the usual court costs in advance.
Nelson had already been granted IFP status in the district court. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3), a party who was allowed to proceed IFP in the district court may generally proceed IFP on appeal without obtaining additional authorization, unless the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that an appeal is not taken in good faith when its claims are factually or legally frivolous—meaning they lack an arguable basis in fact or law.
The court concluded that any appeal concerning Nelson’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act would be frivolous because, as explained in the earlier summary-judgment order, Nelson failed to plead or provide evidence supporting indispensable elements of those claims.
The court remained fully satisfied that Nelson’s Minnesota Human Rights Act claim was properly dismissed on summary judgment and said the appeal of that claim bordered on frivolity. But the court concluded that the claim did not appear completely frivolous under the applicable legal standard. It therefore declined to certify that Nelson’s appeal was not taken in good faith.
Ruling
Judge Laura M. Provinzino ordered that Nelson’s application to proceed IFP on appeal was denied as moot. The court clarified that this ruling does not prevent Nelson from proceeding with his appeal IFP because Rule 24(a)(3) allows him to do so without further authorization from the district court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.