UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Adam Strege, Civ. No. 24-4621 (PAM/JFD) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Minnesota Supreme Court; Natalie Hudson, Minnesota Supreme Court, in her individual and official capacity; All Space Planets People; Patricia J. Milun, Minnesota Workers Compensation Court of Appeals Judge, in her individual and official capacity; 5 Unknown Named Minnesota Court Clerks; Opus Group; Custom Drywall; Commercial Drywall; Akram Osman, Mankato East High School Principal, in his individual and official capacity; Cynthia Pinscher, Mankato East High, in her individual and official capacity; Federated Insurance; Xcel Energy; Sandra Morgan; Mayo Clinic; and David Johnson, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (Docket Nos. 8, 12.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court may authorize a party to proceed without prepayment of fees, costs, or security, on the affidavit of a party testifying that he is unable to pay such costs, describing the nature of the appeal and his belief that he is entitled to redress. However, the Court will deny IFP status if it finds that the appeal is not “taken in good faith.” Id. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith is judged objectively; an appeal is not taken in good faith when it is “factually or legally frivolous.” Crawford v. State of Minn., Civ. No. 04-2822, 2005 WL 1843329, at *1 (D.

Minn. Aug. 2, 2005) (Tunheim, J.).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Affidavits and finds that he financially qualifies for IFP status. However, the Court cannot conclude that this appeal is taken in good faith. The Court dismissed this matter as Plaintiff’s indecipherable Complaint falls far short of alleging any legal claim. (Docket No. 6.) Any appeal would be “frivolous . . . lack[ing] an arguable basis in either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Docket Nos. 8, 12) are DENIED.

Dated: January 28, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Adam Strege, Civ. No. 24-4621 (PAM/JFD) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Minnesota Supreme Court; Natalie Hudson, Minnesota Supreme Court, in her individual and official capacity; All Space Planets People; Patricia J. Milun, Minnesota Workers Compensation Court of Appeals Judge, in her individual and official capacity; 5 Unknown Named Minnesota Court Clerks; Opus Group; Custom Drywall; Commercial Drywall; Akram Osman, Mankato East High School Principal, in his individual and official capacity; Cynthia Pinscher, Mankato East High, in her individual and official capacity; Federated Insurance; Xcel Energy; Sandra Morgan; Mayo Clinic; and David Johnson, Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (Docket Nos. 8, 12.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this Court may authorize a party to proceed without prepayment of fees, costs, or security, on the affidavit of a party testifying that he is unable to pay such costs, describing the nature of the appeal and his belief that he is entitled to redress. However, the Court will deny IFP status if it finds that the appeal is not “taken in good faith.” Id. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith is judged objectively; an appeal is not taken in good faith when it is “factually or legally frivolous.” Crawford v. State of Minn., Civ. No. 04-2822, 2005 WL 1843329, at *1 (D.

Minn. Aug. 2, 2005) (Tunheim, J.).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Affidavits and finds that he financially qualifies for IFP status. However, the Court cannot conclude that this appeal is taken in good faith. The Court dismissed this matter as Plaintiff’s indecipherable Complaint falls far short of alleging any legal claim. (Docket No. 6.) Any appeal would be “frivolous . . . lack[ing] an arguable basis in either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Docket Nos. 8, 12) are DENIED.

Dated: January 28, 2025 s/ Paul A. Magnuson Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge