Blackwell v. Social Security

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          
                      DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                              
RICHARD PRESTON BLACKWELL,                                               
                                      Civil No. 23-1865 (JRT/JFD)        
                       Plaintiff,                                        

v.                                                                       
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER            
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et  DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO   
al.,                                  PROCEED IFP ON APPEAL              

                      Defendants.                                        

    Richard Preston Blackwell, 101 Fifth Street, Suite 150, St. Paul, MN 55101, 
    pro se Plaintiff.                                                    

    Trevor  Brown,  UNITED  STATES  ATTORNEY’S  OFFICE,  300  South  Fourth 
    Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Defendants Social Security 
    Administration and Jim Counts.                                       

    Emily Suhr, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, 90 South Seventh    
    Street, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants Centerra and 
    Jeff Risollo.                                                        

    Colin Laffey, CITY OF SAINT PAUL CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION, 15 West  
    Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 750, St. Paul, MN 55102, for Defendants City of 
    Saint Paul, Anthony Holte, and Mark Hermann.                         


    Plaintiff  Richard  Blackwell  filed  this  action  against  the  Social  Security 
Administration  (“SSA”),  Centerra,  the  City  of  St.  Paul,  and  their  employees  for  an 
altercation that occurred at the SSA office in St. Paul.  See Blackwell v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 
No. 23-1865, 

, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 7, 2024).  The Court dismissed 
Blackwell’s complaint against the federal defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 
because his claims were barred by sovereign immunity and other legal obstacles.  See 

 
at *3–5.  The Court remanded Blackwell’s claims against the other defendants to state 

court after declining to exercise optional supplemental jurisdiction.  See 

 at *5–6.  
Blackwell filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order to the Eighth Circuit and applies to 
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal.  (See Appl. to Proceed IFP on Appeal, Apr. 8, 
2024, Docket No. 71.)  He appears to appeal only the Court’s dismissal of the federal 

defendants.  (See id. at 1.)  Because any appeal would lack an arguable basis in law, the 
Court will deny Blackwell’s application to proceed IFP.                   
    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 

.  To qualify for IFP status, the 
litigant must demonstrate that they cannot afford to pay the full filing fee.  

(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.  

 § 1915(a)(3).  

Good faith in this context is judged by an objective standard and not by the appellant’s 
subjective point of view.  Coppedge v. United States, 

, 444–45 (1962).  To 
determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether the 
claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous.  See 

.  An appeal 

is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”  Neitzke v. Williams, 

 (1989).                                                 
     As explained in the Court’s prior order, Blackwell’s action lacks an arguable basis 
in law.  See Blackwell, 

, at *3—5.  Sovereign immunity bars all  possible 
state law claims against the federal defendants.  It also forecloses potential federal claims, 
not  included  in  Blackwell’s  complaint,  when  analyzed  as  a  matter  of  liberal  claim 
construction.  /d.  Even  setting aside the sovereign  immunity, this action  suffers from 
other insurmountable defects.  Blackwell did not exhaust his administrative remedies to 
bring an action  under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 

 does not authorize 
suit  against federal  defendants,  and  the  facts  of this  case  do  not fit  into the  narrow 
circumstances that can underly a Bivens action.  

  Because Blackwell’s complaint allows 

no basis to overcome sovereign immunity and numerous other legal barriers, his appeal 
of the Court’s order dismissing his complaint against the federal defendants is frivolous. 
Accordingly, the Court will deny his application to proceed IFP on appeal. 

     Based on the foregoing, and  all the files,  records, and  proceedings herein,  IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP on Appeal [Docket No. 71] is 
DENIED. 

DATED:  April 30, 2024                             Toon W. (reat 
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.                         JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
                                            United States District Judge 

                                    -3- 

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          
                      DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                              
RICHARD PRESTON BLACKWELL,                                               
                                      Civil No. 23-1865 (JRT/JFD)        
                       Plaintiff,                                        

v.                                                                       
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER            
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et  DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO   
al.,                                  PROCEED IFP ON APPEAL              

                      Defendants.                                        

    Richard Preston Blackwell, 101 Fifth Street, Suite 150, St. Paul, MN 55101, 
    pro se Plaintiff.                                                    

    Trevor  Brown,  UNITED  STATES  ATTORNEY’S  OFFICE,  300  South  Fourth 
    Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Defendants Social Security 
    Administration and Jim Counts.                                       

    Emily Suhr, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, 90 South Seventh    
    Street, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants Centerra and 
    Jeff Risollo.                                                        

    Colin Laffey, CITY OF SAINT PAUL CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION, 15 West  
    Kellogg Boulevard, Suite 750, St. Paul, MN 55102, for Defendants City of 
    Saint Paul, Anthony Holte, and Mark Hermann.                         


    Plaintiff  Richard  Blackwell  filed  this  action  against  the  Social  Security 
Administration  (“SSA”),  Centerra,  the  City  of  St.  Paul,  and  their  employees  for  an 
altercation that occurred at the SSA office in St. Paul.  See Blackwell v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 
No. 23-1865, 

, at *1 (D. Minn. Feb. 7, 2024).  The Court dismissed 
Blackwell’s complaint against the federal defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 
because his claims were barred by sovereign immunity and other legal obstacles.  See 

 
at *3–5.  The Court remanded Blackwell’s claims against the other defendants to state 

court after declining to exercise optional supplemental jurisdiction.  See 

 at *5–6.  
Blackwell filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s order to the Eighth Circuit and applies to 
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal.  (See Appl. to Proceed IFP on Appeal, Apr. 8, 
2024, Docket No. 71.)  He appears to appeal only the Court’s dismissal of the federal 

defendants.  (See id. at 1.)  Because any appeal would lack an arguable basis in law, the 
Court will deny Blackwell’s application to proceed IFP.                   
    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 

.  To qualify for IFP status, the 
litigant must demonstrate that they cannot afford to pay the full filing fee.  

(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.  

 § 1915(a)(3).  

Good faith in this context is judged by an objective standard and not by the appellant’s 
subjective point of view.  Coppedge v. United States, 

, 444–45 (1962).  To 
determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must decide whether the 
claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous.  See 

.  An appeal 

is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”  Neitzke v. Williams, 

 (1989).                                                 
     As explained in the Court’s prior order, Blackwell’s action lacks an arguable basis 
in law.  See Blackwell, 

, at *3—5.  Sovereign immunity bars all  possible 
state law claims against the federal defendants.  It also forecloses potential federal claims, 
not  included  in  Blackwell’s  complaint,  when  analyzed  as  a  matter  of  liberal  claim 
construction.  /d.  Even  setting aside the sovereign  immunity, this action  suffers from 
other insurmountable defects.  Blackwell did not exhaust his administrative remedies to 
bring an action  under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 

 does not authorize 
suit  against federal  defendants,  and  the  facts  of this  case  do  not fit  into the  narrow 
circumstances that can underly a Bivens action.  

  Because Blackwell’s complaint allows 

no basis to overcome sovereign immunity and numerous other legal barriers, his appeal 
of the Court’s order dismissing his complaint against the federal defendants is frivolous. 
Accordingly, the Court will deny his application to proceed IFP on appeal. 

     Based on the foregoing, and  all the files,  records, and  proceedings herein,  IT IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed IFP on Appeal [Docket No. 71] is 
DENIED. 

DATED:  April 30, 2024                             Toon W. (reat 
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.                         JOHN R. TUNHEIM 
                                            United States District Judge 

                                    -3-