Lopez v. Amazon.com Services LLC
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-00006
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
Lopez v. Amazon.com Services, LLC: Judge Tunheim denied Lopez’s request to appeal without paying fees because he did not identify the issues he would raise.
Antonio Roberto Maximo Lopez, who sought to appeal without paying filing fees, was denied permission to proceed without those fees.
What happened
In Lopez v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, Antonio Roberto Maximo Lopez, representing himself, sought permission to appeal without paying filing fees. He had alleged that Amazon staff subjected him to a hostile work environment during his employment.
The court had previously dismissed Lopez’s case because he had not exhausted his retaliation claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, had not properly alleged a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and had not provided enough details to support his claims. Lopez appealed and submitted an application to proceed without paying fees.
Judge John R. Tunheim denied the application. The court said Lopez did not identify the issues he intended to raise on appeal, stating only that the issue was Amazon’s motion to dismiss, so the court could not determine whether the appeal was taken in good faith. The earlier dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Lopez may bring the claims again if he provides the required details and pays the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Amazon.com Services LLC · No. 0:23-cv-00006
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 4, 2023
Background
Antonio Roberto Maximo Lopez sued Amazon.com Services, LLC, alleging that Amazon staff subjected him to a hostile work environment during two periods of employment: from November 2020 through November 18, 2021, and from January 2022 through February 3, 2022. Lopez represented himself.
The court had previously dismissed the case because Lopez had not exhausted his retaliation claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, had not properly alleged a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and had not included enough details to adequately plead his claims. The earlier dismissal was without prejudice.
Lopez appealed that decision and applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required court fees. His application stated that the issue on appeal was “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”
Court’s Analysis
Federal appellate procedure requires a person seeking to appeal without paying fees to submit an affidavit showing inability to pay, claiming an entitlement to relief, and stating the issues the person intends to present on appeal. Even if the person cannot afford the fees, the court may not grant that status if the appeal is not taken in good faith.
The court concluded that Lopez primarily failed to satisfy the requirement to state the issues he intended to raise on appeal. The court acknowledged its duty to read filings from people without lawyers generously, but explained that self-represented litigants still must follow substantive and procedural law. Because Lopez did not explain the issues for appeal, the court could not determine whether the appeal was taken in good faith.
Disposition
The court denied Lopez’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. The order did not change the earlier statement that the dismissal of Lopez’s complaint was without prejudice; according to the opinion, Lopez may bring his claims again with the required details and payment of the filing fee.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.