Stefannie Dyson and Sean Wells-El v. Bartolomei

Background

Plaintiffs Stefannie Dyson and Sean Wells-El brought suit against Luis Bartolomei, Sarah Lindahl-Pfieffer, the Hennepin County District Court 4th District, and the State of Minnesota. On November 3, 2025, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without prejudice (meaning plaintiffs were not barred from refiling). Plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals and submitted three applications (ECF Nos. 28, 29, 30) asking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal — that is, to be excused from paying the appellate filing fee on grounds of financial hardship.

Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), a litigant seeking IFP status on appeal must file a motion in the district court and identify the issues to be raised on appeal. The controlling question is whether proceeding without IFP status would cause the applicant "undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life." The court cited Daramola v. Dungarvin Inc., Minn., No. 24-cv-0761, 2024 WL 1444100 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2024).

Reasons for Denial

Income and Expenses

Dyson reported a monthly income of $2,400. For a household of two people, this equals 136% of the federal poverty guidelines — above the poverty line. The court noted that income above the poverty threshold, while not automatically disqualifying, weighs against IFP status. Furthermore, Dyson's reported monthly income exceeds her reported monthly expenses, which the court found further undermined her claim of indigency.

Real Estate Ownership

Dyson reported owning $200,000 in real estate in one of her IFP filings. The court cited Westley v. Alberto, No. 13-cv-2044, 2013 WL 12155306 (D. Minn. Aug. 7, 2013), in which IFP status was denied when the applicant reported real property valued at $52,500, as a comparable example of how property ownership weighs against a finding of indigency.

Prior Payment of Fees

Dyson paid the $405 filing fee when she originally filed this case in district court, and she reported spending $1,000–$1,500 on the litigation. The court found she offered no explanation for what changed in her financial circumstances that would now prevent her from paying the appellate filing fee. The court also noted that Dyson had been granted IFP status in at least two prior cases, but those were filed in 2023 when she was incarcerated. More recently, she paid full filing fees in two other federal cases in this district.

Inconsistencies in the Applications

The court identified internal contradictions across Dyson's three filings. In one, she reported monthly expenses of $2,100; in another, $2,000. More significantly, in a cover letter she stated she owned no real property, while in an IFP application she reported owning $200,000 in real estate and earning $2,400 per month in rental income. The court stated that regardless of whether these inconsistencies were innocent or intentional, they undermined the credibility of her applications.

Wells-El's Finances Not Addressed

The court observed that Wells-El is also a plaintiff and could potentially contribute to paying the appellate filing fee, but neither plaintiff provided any information about Wells-El's financial situation. This gap in the record was noted as an additional basis for denial.

Disposition

Judge Provinzino denied all three IFP applications (ECF Nos. 28, 29, 30). The court stated it need not reach the separate question — required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) — of whether the appeal was taken in good faith (i.e., whether the claims to be raised on appeal are factually or legally frivolous), because Plaintiffs did not financially qualify for IFP status in the first instance.

Note on Household Size

In a footnote, the court addressed a discrepancy in Dyson's reported household size. Dyson listed her household size as three in one filing, including a 26-year-old son named Rajuan. However, the court noted that Rajuan is currently incarcerated with an anticipated release date of May 16, 2028, and concluded that the accurate household size for purposes of IFP analysis is two people.