Ploetz v. Winona County

Background

Plaintiff Jason Ploetz filed a complaint against Winona County, the City of Stockton, and the Office of Senator Jeremy Miller. On September 30, 2025, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice following a mandatory preservice review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which allows a court to screen complaints filed by litigants seeking to proceed without prepaying fees before the defendants are even served. Judgment was entered the same day. The court later extended the deadline to file a notice of appeal to December 1, 2025. Ploetz timely filed his notice of appeal and simultaneously filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — meaning without prepaying court fees — on appeal.

Legal Standard for IFP on Appeal

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 presented on appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a court must deny IFP status if the appeal is not taken in good faith. Good faith is determined by whether the claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. The court cited Smith v. Eischen and Neitzke v. Williams as the governing authority.

Financial Eligibility

Ploetz's IFP application showed that his liabilities and regular expenses exceed his income, which is at 68% of the relevant federal poverty guideline. The court found this sufficient to qualify for IFP status, citing Cassell v. Cassell, which approved IFP status for a litigant earning less than 125% of the federal poverty guideline.

Claims Identified for Appeal

In his IFP application, Ploetz stated he intended to appeal dismissal of claims including ADA Title II, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, retaliation, constitutional claims, equal protection/due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, intimidation, interference, environmental violations, and denial of access to courts.

The court found that the Rehabilitation Act and constitutional claims were never part of Ploetz's original complaint. His original complaint alleged only claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and a state-law claim related to the destruction of native wildflowers. Because the Eighth Circuit does not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal (citing Stone v. Harry), the court held that IFP status could not be granted for these new, non-existent claims, as they are plainly frivolous for appeal purposes.

Ruling on the Actual Claims

As to the claims Ploetz did actually bring — ADA and state-law claims — the court found they were not factually or legally frivolous, even though they had been dismissed for pleading deficiencies (failure to adequately plead a claim). The court also noted that resolution of the state-law claims on appeal is tied to the ADA claims, because the court's decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (the authority to hear related state-law claims when a federal claim is present) over the state-law claims depends on whether the ADA claims survive.

Disposition

The court granted Ploetz's application to proceed IFP on appeal, but expressly limited the grant to the claims Ploetz actually alleged in his complaint — the ADA claims, the Minnesota Human Rights Act claims, and the state-law wildflower destruction claim. The grant does not cover the Rehabilitation Act, constitutional, or other claims that Ploetz never raised below.