Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 26, 2023

Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program, the

Judge
John Tunheim
Docket
0:13-cv-01074
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program: Judge Tunheim granted Larson’s application to appeal without paying the filing fee.

Who this affects

Hollis J. Larson, who may pursue the appeal without paying the appellate filing fee; the order did not resolve the claims against the Minnesota Sex Offender Program or its staff.

What happened

Hollis J. Larson, who is civilly committed under the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and represents himself, sued the program and its staff under a federal civil-rights law. After the court denied his request for a lawyer, Larson appealed and asked to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee.

The court found that Larson’s appeal was taken in good faith. Because he had already been allowed to proceed without paying fees in the district-court case, the court ruled that he did not need further approval and granted his application.

Judge John R. Tunheim granted Larson’s motion for permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. This order did not decide the underlying maltreatment claims or the appeal’s merits.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Larson v. Minnesota Sex Offender Program, the · No. 0:13-cv-01074
Judge
John Tunheim
Date
June 26, 2023

Background

Hollis J. Larson, who is civilly committed under the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against MSOP and its staff, alleging various forms of maltreatment at the facility. Larson represented himself. He moved for appointment of counsel.

Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster previously found that Larson’s amended complaint alleged a colorable basis for relief and allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in the district-court action. The magistrate judge denied his request for appointed counsel. The district court later affirmed that denial. Larson appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and sought permission to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee.

Legal standard

Under federal law, a person who cannot afford the full filing fee may apply to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the fee. A person who was already allowed to proceed in that manner in the district court may generally continue to do so on appeal unless the district court determines that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

Ruling

The court determined that Larson’s appeal was taken in good faith. Because the prior approval provision applied, Larson did not need further authorization to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee. The court therefore granted Larson’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis.

The order addressed only the filing-fee issue. It did not decide the merits of Larson’s underlying claims or the merits of his appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.