Sorenson v. State of Minnesota

Background

Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli, who filed the action under the legal name Eric M. Sorenson, applied to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the full filing fee) on appeal. The appeal concerned two earlier district-court orders: a September 13, 2021 order that granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and a December 17, 2021 order that denied Meranelli’s motion for relief from judgment and request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration.

The opinion states that Meranelli later obtained permission for the court to use the name Cherrity Honesty-Alexis Meranelli and feminine pronouns. The September order dismissed several claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), but left claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act pending.

Ruling on the appeal-fee application

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a person may proceed without paying the full appeal filing fee if the person cannot afford it and the appeal is taken in good faith. The court found that Meranelli was financially eligible based on her representations that she was significantly in debt and had no substantial source of income. It also found that her claims did not appear legally or factually frivolous. The court therefore granted Meranelli’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

The case was not stayed

The court stated that it would not stay the district-court action while the appeal was pending. It explained that federal appellate jurisdiction generally requires a final decision resolving the whole case. Because claims remained pending, the September order was not a final appealable decision. The district court had not directed entry of judgment on the dismissed claims, made the required determination that there was no just reason for delay, or certified an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

The court said it was therefore very likely that the court of appeals would find that it lacked jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal as premature. The district-court case was to continue while the appeal was pending. The order itself granted the application to proceed in forma pauperis; it did not dismiss the appeal.