Steve N. v. Kijakazi
- Dulce Foster
- 0:21-cv-02312
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Steve N. v. Kijakazi, Judge Foster denied Steve N.’s application to proceed without fees on appeal because his reported income showed he could afford the costs.
Steve N.’s ability to proceed without paying court fees on appeal; the clerk was also directed to notify the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
What happened
In Steve N. v. Kijakazi, Steve N. asked to proceed without paying court fees while appealing the dismissal of his case.
His application reported more than $7,300 per month in interest and dividend income and stated that he expected no major changes in his income or expenses. The court assessed whether he could pay the costs without hardship.
The court denied the application and ordered the clerk to notify the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the order.
The detailed version
- Steve N. v. Kijakazi · No. 0:21-cv-02312
- Dulce J. Foster
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
Steve N. applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying filing or other court fees, while appealing the dismissal of this action. The court noted that he used a form intended for district-court applications but assumed, because of the case’s posture, that he was applying to proceed without fees on appeal.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the standard that a person may proceed without fees when they cannot afford the costs without undue hardship or deprivation of life’s necessities. Steve N.’s application stated that he had earned more than $7,300 per month in interest and dividends during the previous twelve months. It also stated that he expected no major changes to his monthly income or expenses.
Ruling
The court concluded that Steve N. could afford the costs of proceeding without undue hardship. Judge Dulce J. Foster therefore denied Steve N.’s application to proceed without fees on appeal. The court also ordered the clerk to notify the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that the application had been denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.