Renner v. Minnesota Department of Corrections
- Susan Nelson
- 0:19-cv-03007
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Renner v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, Judge Nelson granted Jared Renner’s application to appeal without paying filing fees.
Jared Renner, whose application to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal was granted; the opinion does not describe the underlying appeal.
What happened
Jared Renner asked to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute or appeal.
The court reviewed Renner’s financial information and found that he qualified financially. It also noted that the court had declined to issue a certificate allowing the appeal to proceed, but explained that the financial-waiver standard was lower and that Renner’s appeal was not frivolous.
Judge Susan Nelson granted Renner’s application to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal. The order did not otherwise decide the underlying appeal.
The detailed version
- Renner v. Minnesota Department of Corrections · No. 0:19-cv-03007
- Susan Nelson
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
Jared Renner filed an application for permission to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal. The opinion does not identify the claims or issues in the underlying case. It states that the court had previously declined to issue a certificate of appealability, which is permission required for certain appeals.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the financial information Renner submitted and concluded that he qualified financially for this fee waiver. The court explained that the standard for proceeding without paying fees is lower than the standard for obtaining a certificate of appealability. It also found that Renner’s appeal was not frivolous, meaning it was not plainly lacking any reasonable basis under the standard cited by the court.
Ruling
Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted Renner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. In plain English, Renner was allowed to pursue the appeal without paying the required filing fees. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying appeal and did not grant a certificate of appealability.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.