Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp and Bill Eischen
David Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp and Bill Eischen, Duluth warden or current acting Warden
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-01591
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp and Bill Eischen, Judge Tunheim granted prisoner David Hirsch's request to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding he cannot afford the fee and that his appeal is not frivolous.
Federal prisoners who have had habeas corpus petitions denied and seek to appeal without paying court filing fees, particularly those raising First Step Act time-credit eligibility arguments in the Eighth Circuit.
What happened
In Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp and Bill Eischen, David Hirsch is a federal prisoner serving two consecutive 60-month sentences at a federal prison camp in Duluth, Minnesota. After the court previously denied his petition seeking release or relief based on his claimed eligibility to earn time credits under a federal law called the First Step Act, Hirsch filed an appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and asked to do so without paying the court's filing fee — a process known as proceeding 'in forma pauperis,' or IFP, which is available to people who cannot afford court costs.
To qualify for IFP status on appeal, a person must show two things: first, that they genuinely cannot afford the filing fee; and second, that the appeal is brought in good faith and is not frivolous. Hirsch demonstrated that he earns only $46.30 per month through prison employment, satisfying the financial hardship requirement. On the good-faith requirement, the court acknowledged that Hirsch's appeal faces an uphill battle because the Eighth Circuit recently rejected nearly identical arguments in another case, but found that this alone does not make the appeal frivolous or in bad faith.
Judge Tunheim granted Hirsch's application to proceed without paying the filing fee, allowing his appeal to move forward in the Eighth Circuit at no cost to him. The court was careful to note that granting IFP status does not mean the appeal is likely to succeed — only that Hirsch has the right to be heard.
The detailed version
This order, issued by United States District Judge John R. Tunheim of the District of Minnesota, addresses a procedural motion filed by pro se (self-represented) petitioner David Hirsch, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at Federal Prison Camp (FPC) Duluth.
Background
Hirsch is serving two consecutive 60-month federal sentences imposed in the Northern District of Iowa — one for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), and one for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Hirsch previously filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a legal request challenging the lawfulness of his imprisonment or the conditions of his confinement) in this court, which was denied on August 11, 2025. See Hirsch v. Federal Prison Camp, No. 25-1591, 2025 WL 2307594 (D. Minn. Aug. 11, 2025). The underlying petition appears to have argued that Hirsch is eligible to earn time credits under the First Step Act of 2018, a federal law that allows certain prisoners to reduce their sentence lengths through program participation.
Motion at Issue
After the denial of his habeas petition, Hirsch filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He subsequently filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal — meaning he sought permission to appeal without paying the court's filing fee due to financial inability.
Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a litigant may be granted IFP status if they demonstrate (1) financial inability to pay the filing fee, and (2) that the appeal is taken in good faith (i.e., is not frivolous). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (a)(3).
Analysis and Ruling
Judge Tunheim found that Hirsch satisfied both requirements. On the financial prong, the court credited Hirsch's representation that he earns only $46.30 per month through prison employment, concluding he cannot pay the full fee. On the good-faith prong, the court noted that Hirsch's First Step Act time-credit argument faces significant headwinds — the Eighth Circuit rejected nearly identical arguments in Clinkenbeard v. Murdock, No. 24-3127, 2025 WL 926451 (8th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025) (per curiam) — but held that the appeal is nonetheless not taken in bad faith. The court emphasized that Hirsch retains the right to have his arguments heard on appeal.
The court granted the IFP application (Docket No. 14), allowing Hirsch to proceed with his Eighth Circuit appeal without paying the filing fee. This ruling does not address or alter the merits of the underlying habeas petition, which remains denied.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.