Curtis v. Progressive Insurance
Devante Curtis v. Progressive Insurance; Hennepin County Medical Center, doing business as Hennepin County Health Care; Brian D. Mahoney, MD, in his official capacity; Zeris Stamatis, MD, in his official capacity; Juan Pablo Sanchez Ramirez, MD, in his official capacity; Sonia Kalirao, MD, in her official capacity; and Bradleigh J. Dornfeld, MD, in his official capacity
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-00727
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Curtis v. Progressive Insurance, Judge Provinzino denied plaintiff Devante Curtis's request to proceed without paying court fees on appeal, finding the appeal legally frivolous.
Pro se litigants who seek to appeal a dismissed case without paying court fees, particularly those who fail to identify specific issues for appeal in their IFP applications. Also relevant to patients suing medical providers and insurers in Minnesota federal court.
What happened
In Curtis v. Progressive Insurance et al. (Case No. 25-cv-727), pro se plaintiff Devante Curtis sued Hennepin County Medical Center and several of its doctors, alleging they intentionally delayed diagnosing him with a traumatic brain injury, and also sued Progressive Insurance for allegedly mishandling a wage-loss claim under Minnesota law. Both sets of defendants moved to dismiss the case, and the court granted those motions on October 24, 2025.
Curtis then filed a notice of appeal and asked the court to allow him to appeal without paying the filing fee — a status known as proceeding "in forma pauperis" (without court costs due to financial hardship). Federal rules require that such a request identify the issues the party intends to raise on appeal, and courts must deny the request if the appeal is not brought in good faith — meaning the claims are not factually or legally frivolous.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino denied Curtis's request to appeal without paying fees. The judge found two independent reasons: first, Curtis's filings provided no explanation of what grounds he intended to raise on appeal, which alone is sufficient to deny the request; and second, the court found no basis for an appeal that would not be frivolous, consistent with its earlier order dismissing the complaint.
The detailed version
- Curtis v. Progressive Insurance · No. 0:25-cv-00727
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
Pro se plaintiff Devante Curtis filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against two sets of defendants. First, he sued Hennepin County Medical Center (doing business as Hennepin County Health Care) and five of its physicians — Brian D. Mahoney, MD; Zeris Stamatis, MD; Juan Pablo Sanchez Ramirez, MD; Sonia Kalirao, MD; and Bradleigh J. Dornfeld, MD — in their official capacities (collectively, the "HCMC Defendants"), alleging they intentionally delayed diagnosing him with a traumatic brain injury. Second, he sued Progressive Insurance, alleging it failed to properly manage a wage-loss claim in violation of Minnesota law.
Both the HCMC Defendants and Progressive moved to dismiss the case. On October 24, 2025, the court granted both motions to dismiss. The opinion does not specify whether those dismissals were with or without prejudice.
The Application at Issue
On November 21, 2025, Curtis filed a notice of appeal and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal — that is, a request to be excused from paying the appellate court's filing fee due to financial hardship. This order addresses only that IFP application, not the merits of any appeal.
Applicable Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), a party seeking IFP status on appeal must file a motion in the district court and state the issues they intend to present on appeal. Under Rule 24(a)(3)(A), the district court must deny IFP status if the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court applies a "factually or legally frivolous" standard to assess good faith, citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
The Court's Analysis
Judge Provinzino identified two separate and independent grounds for denying the IFP application.
First, Curtis's notice of appeal and IFP application stated no grounds for the appeal — they identified no issues he intended to raise. The court cited Lopez v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 23-cv-006 (JRT/DLM), 2023 WL 5000260, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023), for the proposition that without an explanation of the issues to be appealed, the court cannot determine whether the appeal is taken in good faith, and that failure alone is sufficient to deny the motion.
Second, the court stated that it could discern no basis for Curtis's appeal that would not be "factually or legally frivolous," referencing its earlier dismissal order (ECF No. 34) as explaining why.
Disposition
The court denied Curtis's application to proceed IFP on appeal (ECF No. 37). The opinion does not address the underlying appeal itself, which proceeds separately before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; denial of IFP status means Curtis would need to pay the appellate filing fee to continue the appeal or seek IFP status directly from the appellate court.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.