Togba v. ISD 742 Saint Cloud Public Schools

Background

Alicia Welleh Togba, representing herself, sued ISD #742 Saint Cloud Public Schools, her former employer. She alleged discrimination based on race, color, and disability, retaliation, and other claims. The court previously dismissed all claims except the race-discrimination claim. That remaining claim was in discovery.

The previous dismissal followed the school district’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court dismissed Togba’s color- and disability-discrimination claims, retaliation claim, and other claims because she had not exhausted required administrative procedures or had not provided enough supporting facts, according to the earlier order.

Appeal and Fee-Waiver Request

Togba appealed the dismissal of her disability-discrimination claim to the Eighth Circuit and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the appeal filing fee. The court stated that it did not need to decide whether Togba could afford the fee because the appeal was not taken in good faith.

A district court decision generally must be final before it can be appealed. An early appeal, called an interlocutory appeal, is allowed only in limited circumstances. One possible route requires the district court to certify that the order presents a controlling legal question, that there is substantial disagreement about the answer, and that immediate review would materially advance the end of the case.

Ruling

The court held that the case had not ended because the race-discrimination claim remained pending. It therefore concluded that the Eighth Circuit lacked authority to hear Togba’s appeal at that time. The court also found that the matter was not suitable for an early appeal because there was no substantial ground for disagreement and immediate review would not materially advance the case.

The court declined to certify the matter for an interlocutory appeal and held that the appeal was legally frivolous for lack of appellate jurisdiction. It therefore denied Togba’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. The court expressly stated that it did not decide the merits of Togba’s disability-discrimination argument. It noted that she could seek to appeal that dismissal after the district court issued a final decision and could then again apply to proceed without paying the filing fee.