Munt v. Miles
- John Tunheim
- 0:18-cv-00017
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Munt v. Miles, Judge Tunheim granted Joel Marvin Munt permission to appeal without paying fees because his appeal was not frivolous.
Joel Marvin Munt, whose application to proceed without paying fees on appeal was granted; his renewed certificate-of-appealability request was transferred to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
What happened
In Munt v. Miles, Joel Marvin Munt asked to appeal without paying the required fees. The court reviewed the financial information he submitted and found that he qualified financially.
The court granted Munt’s application to proceed without paying fees on appeal, finding that his appeal was not frivolous. The court had previously declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and it transferred Munt’s renewed request for that certificate to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge John R. Tunheim signed the order. The order addressed only Munt’s ability to proceed without paying fees and did not decide the underlying appeal.
The detailed version
- Munt v. Miles · No. 0:18-cv-00017
- John Tunheim
- July 26, 2018
Background
Joel Marvin Munt applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the usual fees, in his appeal. The court reviewed the financial information he submitted. The opinion also states that the court had declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is a document required for some appeals, and that Munt renewed his request for one.
Ruling
The court concluded that Munt qualified financially for in forma pauperis status. It also concluded that his appeal was not frivolous. The court therefore granted Munt’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
The court did not rule on the renewed certificate-of-appealability request. The opinion states that the request was appropriately directed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and was transferred there.
Effect of the Order
This order concerned Munt’s ability to proceed on appeal without paying fees. It did not decide the merits of the underlying appeal or state whether Munt would receive a certificate of appealability.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.