Thomas Richard Ollestad v. City of Mora, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Thomas Richard Ollestad, No. 25-cv-3 (KMM/LIB) Plaintiff, v. ORDER City of Mora, et al., Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Thomas Ollestad’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. (Dkt. 28.) On December 30, 2025, Mr. Ollestad filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from this Court’s November 18, 2025 Order dismissing his Complaint with prejudice and denying his Motion to Strike as moot. (Dkt. 27 (Notice of Appeal); Dkt. 25 (Order dismissing Complaint).) A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the $605 filing fee for an appeal in a federal case may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. If a litigant has already received IFP status to proceed in the district court, as Mr. Ollestad has (Dkt. 3), the litigant may proceed IFP on appeal “without further authorization” unless the district court finds that the appeal was “not taken in good faith” or the litigant is no longer eligible for IFP status. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). To determine whether an appeal is taken in good faith, courts consider whether the claims to be decided on appeal are frivolous, Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962), which is the case when an appeal “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.”

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

Having reviewed the representations in Mr. Ollestad’s application to proceed IFP on appeal, the Court finds that he is financially eligible for IFP status on appeal. Further, his claims do not appear to be legally or factually frivolous. Mr. Ollestad’s appeal is therefore found to be taken “in good faith” for purposes of Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Dkt. 28) is GRANTED.

Date: January 5, 2026 s/Katherine Menendez Katherine Menendez United States District Judge