Redding v. Schnell

Background

Nico Redding applied to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, meaning he asked to appeal without paying the filing fee. He had filed an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the district court case had ended—from an order issued by Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois. The district court had affirmed that order.

The earlier orders struck Redding’s motion for summary judgment as premature. The court had told him that he could refile a motion addressing the merits of his claim if the case survived defendants’ motions for summary judgment concerning exhaustion of remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a person seeking to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee must show that he cannot afford the fee. The court found that Redding was financially eligible. The court also considered whether the appeal was taken in good faith, which required determining whether the appeal was legally or factually frivolous—that is, whether it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact.

The court found that the challenged orders were proper but concluded that Redding’s claims were not legally or factually frivolous. It therefore found that the appeal was taken in good faith for purposes of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3).

The court separately declined to stay, or pause, the district court case while the appeal proceeded. It explained that appellate courts generally have jurisdiction over final district-court decisions, but this case had no final order or judgment. The district court also had not authorized an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court stated that the appeals court was very likely to find that it lacked jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal, but it did not itself dismiss the appeal in this order.

Disposition

The court granted Redding’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. It did not stay the district court action, which was to continue while the appeal was pending.