Devante Curtis v. Progressive Insurance; Hennepin County Medical Center, doing...
Devante Curtis v. Progressive Insurance; Hennepin County Medical Center, doing...
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DEVANTE CURTIS, Case No. 25-cv-727 (LMP/JFD)
Plaintiff, v.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE; APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL ON APPEAL CENTER, doing business as Hennepin County Health Care; BRIAN D.
MAHONEY, MD, in his official capacity; ZERIS STAMATIS, MD,1 in his official capacity; JUAN PABLO SANCHEZ RAMIREZ, MD, in his official capacity; SONIA KALIRAO, MD, in her official capacity; and BRADLEIGH J.
DORNFELD, MD, in his official capacity, Defendants.
Pro se Plaintiff Devante Curtis (“Curtis”) brought this action against Hennepin County Medical Center and some of its individual doctors (collectively the “HCMC Defendants”), alleging that they intentionally delayed diagnosing him with a traumatic brain injury. ECF No. 1 at 3. Curtis also sued Progressive Insurance (“Progressive”), alleging that it failed to properly manage a wage-loss claim in violation of Minnesota law.
1 Defendant Stamatis Zeris appears to be misidentified as “Zeris Stamatis” in the complaint. See ECF No. 20 at 2.
Id. at 11–14. The HCMC Defendants and Progressive moved to dismiss, ECF Nos. 12 and 18, and on October 24, 2025, the Court granted both motions. ECF No. 34.
On November 21, 2025, Curtis filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 36, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, ECF No. 37. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, a litigant who seeks IFP status on appeal must first “file a motion in the district court” and “state[] the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The Court must deny IFP status if the appeal is not taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). “To determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must determine whether the claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous.” Smith v. Eischen, No. 23-cv-357 (JRT/DJF), 2024 WL 2818335, at *1 (D. Minn. June 3, 2024) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).
Curtis’s notice of appeal and his motion to proceed IFP on appeal provide no grounds for the appeal, which by itself provides grounds to deny the motion. Lopez v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 23-cv-006 (JRT/DLM), 2023 WL 5000260, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023) (“Without an explanation of the issues to be appealed, the Court is unable to determine whether the appeal is taken in good faith, as required by statute.”). And the Court can discern no basis for Curtis’s appeal that is not “factually or legally frivolous,” as explained in its order dismissing his complaint. ECF No. 34. Accordingly, the Court denies Curtis’s request to proceed IFP on appeal.
ORDER Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Curtis’s application to proceed IFP on appeal (ECF No. 37) is DENIED.
Dated: November 25, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DEVANTE CURTIS, Case No. 25-cv-727 (LMP/JFD)
Plaintiff, v.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE; APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL ON APPEAL CENTER, doing business as Hennepin County Health Care; BRIAN D.
MAHONEY, MD, in his official capacity; ZERIS STAMATIS, MD,1 in his official capacity; JUAN PABLO SANCHEZ RAMIREZ, MD, in his official capacity; SONIA KALIRAO, MD, in her official capacity; and BRADLEIGH J.
DORNFELD, MD, in his official capacity, Defendants.
Pro se Plaintiff Devante Curtis (“Curtis”) brought this action against Hennepin County Medical Center and some of its individual doctors (collectively the “HCMC Defendants”), alleging that they intentionally delayed diagnosing him with a traumatic brain injury. ECF No. 1 at 3. Curtis also sued Progressive Insurance (“Progressive”), alleging that it failed to properly manage a wage-loss claim in violation of Minnesota law.
1 Defendant Stamatis Zeris appears to be misidentified as “Zeris Stamatis” in the complaint. See ECF No. 20 at 2.
Id. at 11–14. The HCMC Defendants and Progressive moved to dismiss, ECF Nos. 12 and 18, and on October 24, 2025, the Court granted both motions. ECF No. 34.
On November 21, 2025, Curtis filed a notice of appeal, ECF No. 36, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal, ECF No. 37. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, a litigant who seeks IFP status on appeal must first “file a motion in the district court” and “state[] the issues that the party intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The Court must deny IFP status if the appeal is not taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). “To determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must determine whether the claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous.” Smith v. Eischen, No. 23-cv-357 (JRT/DJF), 2024 WL 2818335, at *1 (D. Minn. June 3, 2024) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).
Curtis’s notice of appeal and his motion to proceed IFP on appeal provide no grounds for the appeal, which by itself provides grounds to deny the motion. Lopez v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 23-cv-006 (JRT/DLM), 2023 WL 5000260, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023) (“Without an explanation of the issues to be appealed, the Court is unable to determine whether the appeal is taken in good faith, as required by statute.”). And the Court can discern no basis for Curtis’s appeal that is not “factually or legally frivolous,” as explained in its order dismissing his complaint. ECF No. 34. Accordingly, the Court denies Curtis’s request to proceed IFP on appeal.
ORDER Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Curtis’s application to proceed IFP on appeal (ECF No. 37) is DENIED.
Dated: November 25, 2025 s/Laura M. Provinzino Laura M. Provinzino United States District Judge
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.