Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services
Ezequiel Rivera, Jr. v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and Nestle USA Inc.
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03247
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Judge Provinzino denied plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera Jr.'s request to appeal without paying court fees, finding the appeal frivolous.
Plaintiffs or self-represented litigants who have had a case dismissed and wish to appeal a court's denial of a motion for relief from judgment without paying filing fees. This ruling illustrates that IFP status on appeal will be denied if the appellant provides no specific grounds for the appeal or if the underlying appeal is found to be frivolous.
What happened
In Ezequiel Rivera, Jr. v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and Nestle USA Inc., the court had previously dismissed Rivera's complaint without prejudice on July 7, 2025. Rivera then sought, among other things, to reopen the case based on a Wisconsin state administrative decision issued after the dismissal, arguing it would bolster his claims. The court denied that request, finding the Wisconsin decision was neither newly discovered evidence nor relevant to the reasons the complaint was originally dismissed.
After the court denied his motion for relief from judgment, Rivera filed a second notice of appeal and asked to proceed without paying the filing fees required for the appeal — a status known as in forma pauperis, or IFP. However, Rivera's filings gave no specific reasons for the appeal beyond stating he was challenging the court's ruling 'in its entirety.' All three defendants opposed the IFP request, arguing the appeal was frivolous, and Rivera's reply offered no additional grounds.
Judge Laura M. Provinzino denied Rivera's application to proceed without paying fees. Under the applicable rule, a court must deny IFP status when an appeal is not taken in good faith — meaning the claims on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. Because Rivera provided no specific grounds for the appeal, and because the court could identify no non-frivolous basis for challenging its earlier ruling, the application was denied.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services · No. 0:24-cv-03247
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Apr. 7, 2026
Background
This order concerns a request by plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera, Jr. to appeal a prior ruling without paying court fees — a status known as proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The court had dismissed Rivera's complaint without prejudice on July 7, 2025. After that dismissal, Rivera filed multiple post-judgment motions: a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and a motion to disqualify the court under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Both were denied on September 19, 2025. Rivera also filed a first notice of appeal, which was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as case No. 25-2773 at the time of this order.
The Rule 60(b) Motion and Second Appeal
On February 11, 2026, Rivera filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a court to revisit a final judgment under limited circumstances. Rivera argued that a decision from a Wisconsin state administrative body — issued after the July 7, 2025 dismissal — supported his position, and asked the court either to allow him to file an amended complaint or to transfer the case to a federal court in Wisconsin. On March 20, 2026, the court denied that motion, concluding that the Wisconsin state decision was neither newly discovered evidence nor relevant to the reasons the complaint had been dismissed.
On March 24, 2026, Rivera filed a second notice of appeal and an IFP application, seeking to appeal the March 20, 2026 denial of his Rule 60(b) motion without paying fees. Neither the notice nor the application stated any specific grounds for the appeal beyond asserting that Rivera appealed the order "in its entirety." All three defendants jointly opposed the IFP application on the ground that the appeal is frivolous. Rivera's reply maintained that the appeal "presents an arguable basis for review" but similarly identified no specific grounds.
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. Under Rule 24(a)(3)(A), the court must deny IFP status if the appeal is not taken in good faith. Good faith is assessed by determining whether the claims to be raised on appeal are factually or legally frivolous, consistent with the standard articulated in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Ruling
Judge Provinzino denied Rivera's application to proceed IFP on appeal (ECF No. 132). The court identified two independent reasons. First, Rivera's filings provided no actual grounds for the appeal, which itself is sufficient to deny IFP status because, without an explanation of the issues to be appealed, the court cannot determine whether the appeal is taken in good faith. Second, even looking past that omission, the court could discern no non-frivolous basis for the appeal: the Wisconsin state administrative decision post-dated the July 7, 2025 judgment and was not relevant to the reasons the complaint was originally dismissed, meaning Rivera had presented no basis for the extraordinary relief available under Rule 60(b).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.