Anderson v. Morris Police Department

Background

The court considered Juan V. Anderson’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to pursue an appeal without paying the required appellate filing fee, in eleven proceedings. The order identifies the application in Case No. 21-CV-0971, Doc. No. 12, in its final ruling.

Financial eligibility

The court held that Anderson had not established that he was financially eligible for this status. His appellate application stated that he had no assets or income. But applications he submitted when he began these proceedings only weeks earlier stated that he earned as much as $300,000 per year and had $8,000 in checking or savings accounts. The court also noted that Anderson had paid the filing fee in three of the eleven actions. Because he did not explain the apparent change in his financial circumstances, the court concluded that the application could not be granted.

Good-faith requirement

The court also concluded that Anderson’s appeals were not brought in good faith under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3). The court had given him an opportunity to explain why the District of Minnesota was a proper venue, or location, for the litigation. Instead, he filed fourteen pleadings raising allegations about events outside the district and defendants who reside outside the district. The court said he never provided a satisfactory explanation for why Minnesota was an appropriate venue and could not begin offering that explanation for the first time on appeal.

Ruling

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Anderson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in Case No. 21-CV-0971 be DENIED. The court gave both financial ineligibility and lack of good faith as independent reasons for the denial.