Hines v. State of Minnesota
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-00604
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Hines v. State of Minnesota, Judge Tunheim denied Hines’s appeal-fee waiver because his appeal was premature and legally frivolous.
Frederick Dewayne Hines’s ability to proceed without paying the full appeal fee and the continued status of his underlying action; the court did not resolve his civil-rights claims.
What happened
Hines v. State of Minnesota began as a civil-rights case brought by Frederick Dewayne Hines, who is incarcerated and represented himself. The court had previously denied his request to pay the filing fee in installments under the federal three-strike rule, and Hines appealed that decision.
Hines then asked to proceed without paying the full fee for his appeal to the Eighth Circuit. The court found that the appealed order was not a final decision and that Hines had not met the requirements for an early, or interlocutory, appeal. It therefore concluded that the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction and that the appeal was legally frivolous.
Judge Tunheim denied Hines’s application to proceed without paying the appeal fee. The court also gave Hines 30 days to pay the full $402 filing fee for the action; otherwise, it said the action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Hines v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:23-cv-00604
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 31, 2023
Background
Frederick Dewayne Hines, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action against the State of Minnesota and other defendants. He applied to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning he sought to pay the filing fee in installments rather than paying the entire fee at the outset.
Magistrate Judge John Docherty denied that application after finding that Hines had accrued three qualifying strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Hines objected, arguing that the exception for a person facing imminent danger or serious physical injury applied to him. The district court found no error and denied his challenge to the magistrate judge’s decision.
Hines appealed that order to the Eighth Circuit and separately applied to proceed in forma pauperis on the appeal.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a person seeking in forma pauperis status must show an inability to pay the full filing fee. Even an indigent litigant cannot proceed in forma pauperis if the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court explained that good faith is judged objectively and that an appeal is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
The court also explained that a district court order generally cannot be appealed until the district court has issued a final decision ending the case. The earlier denial of Hines’s in forma pauperis application was not final because it did not resolve any of his civil-rights claims. The court treated Hines’s appeal as an interlocutory appeal, which is allowed only in limited circumstances. It found that Hines had not satisfied the requirements for such an appeal.
Because the court found that the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, it concluded that the appeal was legally frivolous and could not be considered taken in good faith.
Ruling
Judge John R. Tunheim denied Hines’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. The court did not decide the merits of Hines’s underlying civil-rights claims.
The court ordered Hines to pay the full $402 filing fee within 30 days of the order. It stated that failure to pay would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The opinion explains that such a dismissal would be a final decision appealable to the Eighth Circuit.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.