Blackwell v. Social Security
- John Tunheim
- 0:23-cv-01865
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Blackwell v. Social Security, Judge Tunheim denied Blackwell’s request to appeal without paying filing fees, finding his appeal legally frivolous.
Richard Preston Blackwell must pay the applicable appeal filing fee or otherwise comply with the appellate court’s fee requirements; the order concerns only his request to proceed without paying that fee.
What happened
In Blackwell v. Social Security Administration, Richard Preston Blackwell appealed the dismissal of his claims against federal defendants and asked to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The court had sent his claims against the other defendants to state court.
The court said the appeal had no reasonable legal basis because sovereign immunity and other legal barriers prevented Blackwell’s claims against the federal defendants. It also noted that he had not completed required administrative steps for a Federal Tort Claims Act claim, that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not authorize suits against federal defendants, and that the facts did not support a claim under Bivens.
Judge John R. Tunheim ruled that the appeal was frivolous under the applicable standard and denied Blackwell’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal.
The detailed version
- Blackwell v. Social Security · No. 0:23-cv-01865
- John Tunheim
- May 1, 2024
Background
Richard Preston Blackwell sued the Social Security Administration, Centerra, the City of St. Paul, and employees of those entities over an altercation at a Social Security Administration office in St. Paul. In an earlier order, the court dismissed Blackwell’s claims against the federal defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing sovereign immunity and other legal obstacles. The court sent his claims against the remaining defendants to state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them.
Blackwell appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He then applied to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, meaning he sought permission to appeal without paying the full filing fee. The opinion states that his application appeared to challenge only the dismissal of his claims against the federal defendants.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant may proceed without paying the full appeal filing fee if the litigant cannot afford it. But even an indigent litigant may not proceed without the fee when the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court applies an objective standard and considers whether the appeal is factually or legally frivolous. An appeal is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
Court’s reasoning
The court relied on its earlier analysis that Blackwell’s action lacked an arguable legal basis. It stated that sovereign immunity barred all possible state-law claims against the federal defendants and also prevented potential federal claims when the complaint was read broadly. The court further identified several other legal barriers: Blackwell had not exhausted administrative remedies required for a Federal Tort Claims Act action; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not authorize suits against federal defendants; and the facts did not fit the narrow circumstances that can support a Bivens action, a judicially recognized claim for damages against certain federal officials.
Disposition
The court concluded that Blackwell’s appeal of the dismissal of his claims against the federal defendants was frivolous because the complaint provided no basis for overcoming sovereign immunity or the other legal barriers. It denied Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP on Appeal [Docket No. 71].
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.