McAllister v. Aeon
- David Doty
- 0:25-cv-03044
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In McAllister v. Aeon, Judge Doty denied plaintiff Melissa McAllister's request to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding her appeal frivolous and therefore not brought in good faith.
Plaintiff Melissa McAllister, a litigant who sought to appeal without paying the filing fee. Potentially relevant to other pro se litigants seeking to appeal without prepaying fees when their underlying case has been dismissed.
What happened
In McAllister v. Aeon, plaintiff Melissa McAllister had previously filed a lawsuit against Aeon, Aeon Management, The Rose Apartments, and Franklin Portland Gateway, which was dismissed by the court. She then sought to appeal that dismissal without having to pay the court filing fee, a status available to people who cannot afford court costs.
The court acknowledged that McAllister's financial situation — her income and savings — suggested she may genuinely be unable to afford the filing fee. However, federal law requires more than financial need: a litigant also must show that the appeal is brought in 'good faith,' meaning it has at least some reasonable basis in law or fact. If an appeal has no arguable legal or factual basis, it is considered 'frivolous' and cannot be considered to be filed in good faith, regardless of the litigant's financial situation.
Judge Doty, of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, found that McAllister's appeal is frivolous for the same reasons her underlying case was dismissed (as explained in ECF No. 4, the dismissal order). Because the appeal lacks good faith under the applicable legal standard, her request to appeal without prepaying fees was denied.
The detailed version
Case: McAllister v. Aeon, Civil No. 25-3044 (DSD/SGE), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Judge: David S. Doty. Decided: September 30, 2025.
Background
Plaintiff Melissa McAllister filed a civil lawsuit against defendants Aeon, Aeon Management, The Rose Apartments, and Franklin Portland Gateway. The court previously dismissed the case by order at ECF No. 4. McAllister then sought to appeal that dismissal and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal — meaning she asked to be excused from prepaying the appellate filing fee — under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a).
Legal Standard
To obtain IFP status, a litigant must satisfy two requirements: (1) financial eligibility — demonstrating an inability to pay the full filing fee, per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); and (2) good faith — the appeal must not be frivolous, per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Good faith is assessed under an objective standard, not the appellant's subjective beliefs. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962). An appeal is frivolous when it 'lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.' Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Financial Eligibility
The court assumed, without definitively finding, that McAllister is financially eligible for IFP status based on her application showing potentially insufficient monthly income or savings.
Good Faith Analysis
The court found McAllister's appeal frivolous, incorporating by reference the reasoning in the earlier dismissal order (ECF No. 4). The opinion does not re-state those reasons; it simply applies them to the IFP appeal context. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is not taken in good faith under § 1915(a)(3).
Ruling
McAllister's application to appeal without prepaying fees (ECF No. 7) was denied. This means she would need to pay the required appellate filing fee to pursue her appeal, or seek IFP status from the court of appeals under Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
Note
The underlying reasons for dismissal are contained in ECF No. 4, which is not reproduced in this opinion. The full basis for the frivolousness finding cannot be assessed from this order alone.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.