Smith v. Anderson

Background

The court had dismissed Jerry Smith’s complaint during statutory screening for failure to state a claim. Smith alleged that the defendants—a group of Minnesota state-court judges and private attorneys—conspired to deny him constitutional rights and committed fraud in connection with a complaint he had previously filed in Minnesota state court.

The court previously ruled that Smith’s claims against the judicial defendants were barred by judicial immunity. It also ruled that any claims against the private attorneys arose under Minnesota common law. Smith later moved for reconsideration, focusing on the judicial-immunity ruling. The court denied that motion, concluding that the judges were entitled to judicial immunity.

Request to Proceed Without Paying Appeal Fees

Smith filed a notice of appeal and asked the district court for permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to pursue the appeal without prepaying required court fees. Federal appellate procedure requires a party seeking that status to file a motion in the district court and identify the issues intended for appeal. A court may deny that status when it certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith.

The court explained that an appeal is not taken in good faith when the claims to be decided are factually or legally frivolous. Smith’s notice of appeal and application did not state the grounds for his appeal. The court held that this omission alone supported denying the application. Even when the court treated the issues from Smith’s reconsideration motion as the issues he intended to raise on appeal, it found that Smith had not shown those issues were meritorious. The court also found no other non-frivolous basis for the appeal.

Disposition

Judge Laura M. Provinzino denied Smith’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The order addressed Smith’s ability to proceed without prepaying appeal fees; it did not revisit the underlying complaint’s dismissal.