Reichel
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-04154
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Reichel v. Jensen-Carter, Judge Provinzino denied Reichel leave to proceed without fees on appeal because the appeal was frivolous.
Bryan S. Reichel’s request to proceed without paying fees in his pending appeal was denied; his underlying appeal remained pending.
What happened
In Reichel v. Jensen-Carter, Bryan S. Reichel asked to appeal without paying filing fees. His appeal challenged this court’s earlier decision affirming a bankruptcy judge’s refusal to dismiss certain creditors’ claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court explained that an earlier permission to proceed without fees applied to a different appeal and did not apply here. It found that Reichel’s current appeal was not brought in good faith because his arguments about claims filed by 7th Rig, LLC, George Anderson, and Richard Perkins had been rejected repeatedly and lacked a reasonable legal or factual basis.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino denied Reichel’s application to proceed without fees on appeal. The underlying appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remained pending.
The detailed version
- Reichel · No. 0:24-cv-04154
- Laura M. Provinzino
- June 23, 2025
Background
On March 19, 2025, the court affirmed Bankruptcy Judge Katherine A. Constantine’s decision denying Reichel’s motion to dismiss certain creditors’ claims against his bankruptcy estate for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Reichel appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the appeal remained pending when the court issued this order.
Reichel applied for permission to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, meaning without paying the required court fees. He stated that a lower court had previously approved him to proceed without fees. The court explained that its own records did not show that it had granted him that status in this case. The earlier order Reichel appeared to reference was a May 2020 bankruptcy-court order involving a different appeal, so it did not provide fee-free status for this appeal.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, a person who has not already been granted fee-free status in the district court must ask the district court for permission to proceed without fees on appeal and state the issues intended for appeal. The court may deny that permission if the appeal is not taken in good faith. For this purpose, an appeal is not taken in good faith when the issues are legally or factually frivolous—that is, when they lack an arguable basis in law or fact.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Reichel’s appeal was not taken in good faith. It relied on its earlier order and noted that Reichel’s challenges to proofs of claim filed by 7th Rig, LLC, George Anderson, and Richard Perkins had been rejected repeatedly. The court concluded that Reichel’s latest arguments, whether described as jurisdictional arguments or otherwise, lacked an arguable basis in law or fact and therefore made the appeal frivolous.
Disposition
Judge Laura M. Provinzino ordered that Reichel’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, ECF No. 24, was DENIED. This order addressed only permission to proceed without fees; the opinion states that Reichel’s underlying appeal remained pending.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.