Hogy v. Ludeman
- John Tunheim
- 0:16-cv-02092
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Hogy v. Ludeman, Judge Tunheim denied Hogy’s request to appeal without paying fees, finding the appeal frivolous.
The nine plaintiffs—Peter Allan, Sr., Terry Lee Branson, Bradley Wayne Foster, Kenneth Donald Hand, Randy Earl Hammermeister, Steven Merrill Hogy, Kevin Scott Karsjens, Peter Gerard Lonergan, and Brad Ronald Stevens—were denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
What happened
In Hogy v. Ludeman, Hogy and eight other patients in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program claimed that the program’s conditions and policies violated their constitutional rights. The district court had dismissed their claims after deciding that an earlier related case prevented them from bringing those claims again.
The plaintiffs appealed and each asked to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The court found that their appeal was frivolous because they identified no facts or legal reasoning showing that the dismissal was wrong; their notice of appeal only said that the court had erred in applying issue preclusion.
The court denied all nine applications to proceed without paying the appeal fee. Judge John R. Tunheim issued the order on February 13, 2023.
The detailed version
- Hogy v. Ludeman · No. 0:16-cv-02092
- John Tunheim
- Feb. 13, 2023
Background
This order addressed nine related cases: Hogy v. Ludeman and cases involving Peter Allan, Sr., Terry Lee Branson, Bradley Wayne Foster, Kenneth Donald Hand, Randy Earl Hammermeister, Kevin Scott Karsjens, Peter Gerard Lonergan, and Brad Ronald Stevens. The plaintiffs were patients in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) who claimed that MSOP conditions and policies violated their constitutional rights.
The district court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims after concluding that issue preclusion—meaning that an issue already decided in an earlier case could not be litigated again—barred their complaints. The Eighth Circuit later reversed that dismissal in light of its decision in an earlier related proceeding and sent the cases back with instructions to stay them while that proceeding continued. After the related district court reached the same outcome, the court again concluded that collateral estoppel, another term for issue preclusion, barred the plaintiffs’ claims.
The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit. The appeals were consolidated, and each plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the full appeal filing fee.
Court’s Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a person seeking to avoid paying an appeal filing fee must show that they cannot afford the fee. But even an indigent litigant cannot proceed without paying if the appeal is not taken in good faith. An appeal is not taken in good faith when it presents no nonfrivolous issue—meaning it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis.
The court found that the appeal was frivolous. The plaintiffs presented no arguments for the Eighth Circuit to consider, identified no factual findings they claimed were wrong, and offered no explanation for an alleged legal error. Their joint notice of appeal stated only: “The court erred in it’s [sic] analysis, in finding issue preclusion.” Based on the lack of any developed factual or legal argument, the court exercised its discretion to find that the appeal was frivolous.
Disposition
The court DENIED the plaintiffs’ petitions to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in all nine related cases. The order concerned the requests to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee and did not itself decide the Eighth Circuit appeals.
Judge John R. Tunheim signed the order on February 13, 2023.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.