Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp and Bill Eischen
David Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp and Bill Eischen, Duluth warden or current acting Warden
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-01591
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp, Judge Tunheim granted prisoner David Hirsch's request to appeal without paying court fees.
Federal prisoners who have been denied habeas corpus petitions and seek to appeal without paying filing fees, particularly those raising First Step Act time-credit arguments.
What happened
In Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp and Bill Eischen, David Hirsch is a federal prisoner serving two consecutive 60-month sentences at a federal prison camp in Duluth, Minnesota. After the court previously denied his petition asking to be released or given credit toward his sentence under a federal law called the First Step Act, Hirsch filed an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and asked to be excused from paying the required filing fee because he cannot afford it.
To be excused from paying court filing fees — a status known as 'in forma pauperis,' meaning proceeding as a poor person — a litigant must show two things: that they genuinely cannot afford the fee, and that the appeal is not filed in bad faith (meaning it raises a real legal argument, not a frivolous one). Hirsch earns only $46.30 per month from his prison job, which the court found is insufficient to pay the full fee. The court also found that his legal argument — that he should be able to earn time credits under the First Step Act to shorten his sentence — is a genuine legal question, not a bad-faith filing, even though the court noted similar arguments have been rejected by the Eighth Circuit in another recent case.
Judge John R. Tunheim granted Hirsch's application to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal. The court was clear that granting this request does not mean the appeal will succeed — in fact, the court expressed the view that success is unlikely given existing Eighth Circuit precedent — but that Hirsch has the right to have his appeal heard regardless.
The detailed version
- Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp and Bill Eischen · No. 0:25-cv-01591
- John Tunheim
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
Petitioner David Hirsch is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at Federal Prison Camp (FPC) Duluth in Minnesota. He is serving two consecutive 60-month (five-year) sentences: one for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), and one for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), both arising from a case in the Northern District of Iowa.
Hirsch previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a legal action challenging the legality of one's confinement — in this court, arguing that he was eligible to earn time credits under the First Step Act of 2018, a federal law that allows certain prisoners to reduce their sentences through programming and good conduct. That petition was denied by this court on August 11, 2025. See Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp, No. 25-1591, 2025 WL 2307594 (D. Minn. Aug. 11, 2025). Hirsch then filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and subsequently filed a pro se (self-represented, without a lawyer) application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal — that is, to be excused from paying the appellate filing fee due to financial hardship.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a party may seek IFP status to avoid paying court filing fees. To qualify, the applicant must satisfy two requirements:
1. Financial indigency: The applicant must demonstrate they cannot afford to pay the full filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 2. Good faith: Even if indigent, IFP status will be denied if the court finds the appeal is not taken in good faith — meaning it lacks any arguable legal merit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Analysis and Ruling
Financial Indigency
The court found that Hirsch's application demonstrated he is incarcerated and earns only $46.30 per month through prison employment. Based on this, the court concluded that Hirsch is unable to pay the full appellate filing fee.
Good Faith
The court found that Hirsch's appeal — arguing that he is eligible to earn time credits under the First Step Act — is not taken in bad faith. The court acknowledged that the Eighth Circuit has already rejected arguments nearly identical to Hirsch's in Clinkenbeard v. Murdock, No. 24-3127, 2025 WL 926451 (8th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025) (per curiam), and stated that Hirsch's appeal is "unlikely to be successful." Nevertheless, the court determined that Hirsch raises a cognizable legal question and has the right to be heard on appeal, satisfying the good-faith requirement.
Disposition
Judge Tunheim granted Hirsch's application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. This ruling allows Hirsch to appeal without prepaying the filing fee; it does not address the merits of the underlying habeas petition or the appeal itself.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.