UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CIVIL NO. 25-3044 (DSD/SGE) Melissa McAllister, Plaintiff, v. ORDER Aeon; Aeon Management; The Rose Apartments; and Franklin Portland Gateway, Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the application to proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal by plaintiff Melissa McAllister.

A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal 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 she cannot afford to pay the full filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

The IFP application indicates that McAllister may not have enough monthly income or savings to pay the full filing fee. As a result, the court will assume that she is financially eligible for IFP status.

IFP status will be denied, however, if the court finds that the litigant’s appeal is not taken in “good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith in this context is judged by an objective standard and not by the subjective beliefs of the appellant.

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 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. Id. at 445. 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).

For the reasons stated in the court’s order dismissing her case, ECF No. 4, the court finds that McAllister’s appeal is frivolous. As a result, the appeal is not considered to be taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and the IFP application will be denied.

Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application to appeal in forma pauperis [ECF No. 7] is denied.

Dated: September 30, 2025 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA CIVIL NO. 25-3044 (DSD/SGE) Melissa McAllister, Plaintiff, v. ORDER Aeon; Aeon Management; The Rose Apartments; and Franklin Portland Gateway, Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the application to proceed without prepayment of fees on appeal by plaintiff Melissa McAllister.

A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing fee for an appeal 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 she cannot afford to pay the full filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

The IFP application indicates that McAllister may not have enough monthly income or savings to pay the full filing fee. As a result, the court will assume that she is financially eligible for IFP status.

IFP status will be denied, however, if the court finds that the litigant’s appeal is not taken in “good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith in this context is judged by an objective standard and not by the subjective beliefs of the appellant.

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 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. Id. at 445. 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).

For the reasons stated in the court’s order dismissing her case, ECF No. 4, the court finds that McAllister’s appeal is frivolous. As a result, the appeal is not considered to be taken in good faith for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), and the IFP application will be denied.

Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application to appeal in forma pauperis [ECF No. 7] is denied.

Dated: September 30, 2025 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court