Anderson v. Ishrak
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:22-cv-00426
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Micah Anderson v. Omar Ishark, Judge Wright denied Anderson’s appeal-fee waiver because his notice of appeal was late and ordered payment of $505.
Micah Anderson must pay the $505 appellate filing fee through deductions from his institutional account; officials at the institution where he is confined must receive notice and a copy of the order.
What happened
Micah Anderson sued Omar Ishark and others, alleging constitutional violations and personal-injury claims. The court had dismissed Anderson’s complaint without prejudice, and Anderson later filed an appeal and asked to proceed without paying the full fee upfront.
The court found that Anderson missed the deadline to appeal and also missed the deadline to ask for more time. It further found that the rules did not allow the court to reopen the appeal period. Because the appeal was untimely, the court concluded that it was not taken in good faith and denied Anderson’s request to proceed without paying the fee upfront.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright ordered Anderson to pay the $505 appellate filing fee immediately through deductions from his institutional account, as required for a prisoner under federal law. The clerk was directed to send the order to the officials at the institution where Anderson is confined.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. Ishrak · No. 0:22-cv-00426
- Wilhelmina Wright
- Dec. 21, 2022
Background
Micah Anderson filed a complaint alleging that Omar Ishark and other defendants violated constitutional rights and committed personal-injury torts. On August 12, 2022, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and denied Anderson’s earlier application to proceed without paying the filing fee as unnecessary at that time. Anderson filed a notice of appeal on December 8, 2022, and applied to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee upfront.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) generally requires a notice of appeal within 30 days after the judgment or order being appealed. The court determined that Anderson’s deadline was September 14, 2022, making the December 8 notice untimely.
Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(i) permits a district court to extend the appeal deadline only if the request is made within 30 days after the original deadline. Anderson’s deadline to seek an extension was October 14, 2022, and he missed that deadline as well.
The court also considered whether it could reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6). Although the court noted there might be reason to believe Anderson did not receive notice of the judgment within 21 days after it was entered, it relied on the October 4, 2022 date written on Anderson’s notice of appeal as showing that he had notice no later than that date. The court concluded that Anderson filed after the applicable 14-day period, even considering additional time for mailing, and therefore lacked authority to give him more time to appeal.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a court may not allow an appeal to proceed without upfront payment when it certifies that the appeal was not taken in good faith. Because the appeal was plainly untimely, the court concluded that Anderson had not taken it in good faith. The court also found that Anderson was a “prisoner” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) and (h), meaning the appellate filing fee could not be waived. The court explained that proceeding without upfront payment would, at most, have allowed payment in installments rather than eliminating the fee.
Disposition
The court denied Anderson’s application to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee upfront. It ordered that the $505 filing fee was due immediately and that Anderson must pay it through deductions from his institutional account under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The clerk was ordered to provide the order to officials at the institution where Anderson is confined.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.