Garry Anderson v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA In re: BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR MDL No. 15-2666 (JNE/DTS) WARMING DEVICES PRODUCTS ORDER LIABILITY LITIGATION This Document Relates to: Case No. 17-cv-101 (Garry Anderson v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc.) This case is before the Court on Garry Anderson’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. 24(a)(1). To qualify for in forma pauperis status on appeal, a litigant who appeals from a judgment in a civil action must submit information that demonstrates the litigant’s inability to pay, or give security for, the appellate filing fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Even if the litigant is financially eligible to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the litigant may not appeal in forma pauperis if the district court “certifies in writing that [the appeal] is not taken in good faith.” Id. § 1915(a)(3).

A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of issues that are not frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).

According to his notice of appeal, Anderson is appealing because he was “forced to accept that [his] attorney asked to be released from [his] case.” In his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, he stated that he is “asking for assistance” due to his attorney’s withdrawal. Anderson did not object to the order that granted his attorney’s motion to withdraw. His case was moved from Group 1 to Group 3 “[t]o provide [him] sufficient time to obtain substitute counsel.” (Docket No. 25) Anderson has “no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel.” Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). As set forth in the November 2025 Report and Recommendation, he “repeatedly failed to prosecute this case” in the months since his attorney’s withdrawal.

Although the information submitted by Anderson indicates that he is financially eligible to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, he has not demonstrated that he seeks “appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445. The Court therefore certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith and denies his motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.

Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Anderson’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [Docket Nos. 34 & 36] is DENIED.

Dated: February 20, 2026 s/Joan N. Ericksen JOAN N. ERICKSEN United States District Judge