Roybal v. State of Minnesota
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Roybal v. State of Minnesota
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Kristopher Lee Roybal, No. 21-CV-2026 (KMM/ECW)
Petitioner,
v. ORDER
Paul Schnell, Comm’r of Corrections
Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on Kristopher Lee Roybal’s application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. ECF 51. Mr. Roybal wishes to appeal a
judgment that denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF 47.
A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal in a
federal case may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). To qualify for IFP status, the litigant must demonstrate that he or she cannot afford to pay the full filing fee.28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(1). Even if a litigant is found to be indigent, however, IFP status will be denied if the Court finds that the litigant's appeal is not taken “in good faith.”28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). To determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether the claims to be raised on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. Coppedge v. United States,369 U.S. 438, 444-45
(1962). An appeal is frivolous, and therefore cannot be taken in good faith, “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989).
The Court will grant Mr. Roybal’s IFP application. First, Mr. Roybal’s IFP
application shows that he is currently incarcerated and has no assets that could be used to
pay for the filing fee and costs of his appeal. He is therefore financially eligible for IFP
status. Second, even though the Court previously declined to grant a Certificate of
Appealability (“COA”) to Mr. Roybal (see ECF 47 at 4) and remains certain that Mr.
Roybal’s habeas petition was properly denied, his appeal is not deemed to be “frivolous”
as that term has been defined by the Supreme Court. Therefore, Mr. Roybal’s appeal is
taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3),
and his IFP application will be granted. The Court notes, however, that Mr. Roybal’s
appeal will not proceed unless the Court of Appeals grants him a COA. See Fed. R. App.
P. 22(b)(1).
I. Order
Based on the discussion above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. Petitioner Kristopher Lee Roybal’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal (ECF 51) is GRANTED.
Date: February 25, 2024
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Kristopher Lee Roybal, No. 21-CV-2026 (KMM/ECW)
Petitioner,
v. ORDER
Paul Schnell, Comm’r of Corrections
Respondent.
This matter is before the Court on Kristopher Lee Roybal’s application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. ECF 51. Mr. Roybal wishes to appeal a
judgment that denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. ECF 47.
A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal in a
federal case may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a). To qualify for IFP status, the litigant must demonstrate that he or she cannot afford to pay the full filing fee.28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(1). Even if a litigant is found to be indigent, however, IFP status will be denied if the Court finds that the litigant's appeal is not taken “in good faith.”28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). To determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether the claims to be raised on appeal are factually or legally frivolous. Coppedge v. United States,369 U.S. 438, 444-45
(1962). An appeal is frivolous, and therefore cannot be taken in good faith, “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989).
The Court will grant Mr. Roybal’s IFP application. First, Mr. Roybal’s IFP
application shows that he is currently incarcerated and has no assets that could be used to
pay for the filing fee and costs of his appeal. He is therefore financially eligible for IFP
status. Second, even though the Court previously declined to grant a Certificate of
Appealability (“COA”) to Mr. Roybal (see ECF 47 at 4) and remains certain that Mr.
Roybal’s habeas petition was properly denied, his appeal is not deemed to be “frivolous”
as that term has been defined by the Supreme Court. Therefore, Mr. Roybal’s appeal is
taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3),
and his IFP application will be granted. The Court notes, however, that Mr. Roybal’s
appeal will not proceed unless the Court of Appeals grants him a COA. See Fed. R. App.
P. 22(b)(1).
I. Order
Based on the discussion above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. Petitioner Kristopher Lee Roybal’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal (ECF 51) is GRANTED.
Date: February 25, 2024
s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown