Anderson v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:17-cv-00101
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Anderson v. 3M Company, Judge Ericksen denied Garry Anderson's request to appeal without paying fees, certifying the appeal is not taken in good faith.
Garry Anderson, a plaintiff in the Bair Hugger MDL who lost his attorney and sought to appeal without paying fees. Others in similar MDL cases who have had counsel withdraw and seek to appeal without paying filing fees may find this ruling relevant to understanding the good-faith standard for fee waivers.
What happened
This case, Garry Anderson v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc. (part of a larger multi-district litigation over Bair Hugger forced-air warming devices), concerns Garry Anderson's request to pursue an appeal without paying the required court filing fees — a status sometimes called proceeding without prepayment of fees. Anderson's appeal stems from his dissatisfaction with his attorney being allowed to withdraw from his case. He did not object to that withdrawal at the time it happened, and the court previously found that he repeatedly failed to take steps to move his case forward in the months after his attorney left.
To be allowed to appeal without paying fees, a litigant must show two things: first, that they cannot afford the fees; and second, that the appeal is taken in good faith — meaning it raises at least one issue that is not frivolous (lacking any legal merit). The court found that Anderson does appear to be financially unable to pay the fees. However, the court also found that his appeal — which essentially seeks help because his lawyer withdrew — does not raise any non-frivolous legal issue, since he has no legal right to have a lawyer appointed for him in a civil case.
Judge Joan N. Ericksen denied Anderson's motion to proceed without paying fees, certifying in writing that the appeal is not taken in good faith. This means Anderson would need to pay the appellate filing fees or have the appeals court separately consider his request if he wishes to continue his appeal.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare · No. 0:17-cv-00101
- Joan Ericksen
- Feb. 20, 2026
Background
This matter arises within a multi-district litigation (MDL) — a procedural consolidation of many related federal cases before a single court — involving product liability claims against 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc. related to Bair Hugger forced-air warming devices. The specific case here involves plaintiff Garry Anderson.
Anderson's attorney previously moved to withdraw from representing him. Anderson did not object to that withdrawal. Following the withdrawal, Anderson's case was moved from Group 1 to Group 3 within the MDL to give him time to find replacement counsel. According to a November 2025 Report and Recommendation referenced in the opinion, Anderson repeatedly failed to prosecute (i.e., actively pursue) his case during the months after his attorney's departure.
Anderson subsequently filed a notice of appeal, stating he was appealing because he was "forced to accept" his attorney's withdrawal. He also filed a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis — a legal term meaning to proceed without prepaying court filing fees because of financial inability — under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a litigant seeking to appeal without paying fees must submit information demonstrating an inability to pay or to post security for those fees. However, even a financially eligible litigant may not proceed without fees if the district court certifies in writing that the appeal "is not taken in good faith." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith is established by seeking review of at least one issue that is not frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
Analysis and Ruling
The court found that Anderson's financial disclosures do establish his inability to pay the appellate filing fees, satisfying the financial prong of the test.
However, the court found that Anderson's appeal does not present any non-frivolous issue. His stated basis for appeal — that he was effectively forced to accept his attorney's withdrawal — does not raise a cognizable legal claim. The court cited Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013), for the proposition that Anderson has "no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel" in a civil case. Additionally, the record showed he did not object to the withdrawal order at the time and subsequently failed to prosecute his case.
Because the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue, the court certified in writing that the appeal is not taken in good faith, as required by § 1915(a)(3), and denied Anderson's motion to proceed on appeal without paying fees.
Disposition
Anderson's motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees (Docket Nos. 34 & 36) is DENIED. The court issued a written certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. To continue his appeal, Anderson would need to address the fee requirement at the appellate level.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.