Curtis v. Progressive Insurance
Devante Curtis v. Progressive Insurance; Hennepin County Medical Center, doing business as Hennepin County Health Care; Brian D. Mahoney, MD, in his official capacity; Zeris Stamatis, MD, 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
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-00727
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Curtis v. Progressive Insurance et al., Judge Provinzino denied pro se plaintiff Devante Curtis's request to proceed without paying court fees on appeal because he provided no grounds for the appeal and the court found no non-frivolous basis for one.
Pro se litigants who have had cases dismissed and seek to appeal without paying fees; specifically Devante Curtis, whose application to waive appellate filing fees was denied. Also of note to anyone suing medical providers or insurers in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Curtis v. Progressive Insurance et al. (Case No. 25-cv-727), Devante Curtis, representing himself, sued Hennepin County Medical Center and several of its doctors, claiming they intentionally delayed diagnosing him with a traumatic brain injury. He also sued Progressive Insurance, alleging it mishandled a wage-loss claim under Minnesota law. The court had already dismissed both sets of claims on October 24, 2025, after the defendants moved to dismiss.
On November 21, 2025, Curtis filed a notice of appeal and asked the court to allow him to appeal without paying filing fees — a status sometimes called proceeding without prepaying costs. Under the rules governing federal appeals, a court must deny that status if the appeal is not taken in good faith, meaning the claims to be raised on appeal are factually or legally without merit.
Judge Provinzino denied Curtis's request. The court found two independent reasons: first, Curtis's filings provided no explanation of what issues he intended to raise on appeal, which alone is grounds for denial; second, the court could identify no arguable, non-frivolous basis for an appeal given the reasoning in its earlier dismissal order. Curtis may still pursue his appeal, but he would need to pay the applicable filing fees or seek the fee waiver directly from the appeals court.
The detailed version
- Devante Curtis v. Progressive Insurance et al., No. 25-cv-727 (LMP/JFD)
- Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge
- November 25, 2025
Background
Pro se (self-represented) plaintiff Devante Curtis brought suit against two groups of defendants: (1) Hennepin County Medical Center (doing business as Hennepin County Health Care) and five of its physicians — Brian D. Mahoney, MD; Zeris Stamatis, MD; Juan Pablo Sanchez Ramirez, MD; Sonia Kalirao, MD; and Bradleigh J. Dornfeld, MD — collectively the 'HCMC Defendants,' alleging intentional delay in diagnosing him with a traumatic brain injury; and (2) Progressive Insurance, alleging improper handling of a wage-loss claim in violation of Minnesota law. Both the HCMC Defendants and Progressive moved to dismiss (ECF Nos. 12 and 18), and the court granted both motions on October 24, 2025 (ECF No. 34).
Procedural posture
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). Proceeding IFP means being permitted to litigate or appeal without prepaying court fees because of financial inability to do so.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) requires a litigant seeking IFP status on appeal to file a motion in the district court and state the issues to be presented on appeal. Rule 24(a)(3)(A) requires the district court to deny IFP status if the appeal is not taken in good faith. Good faith is assessed by determining whether the claims to be raised on appeal are factually or legally frivolous — i.e., without arguable merit — citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Ruling
Judge Provinzino denied the IFP application (ECF No. 37). The court identified two independent grounds: (1) Curtis's notice of appeal and IFP application stated no grounds or issues for appeal, which alone prevents the court from assessing good faith, citing Lopez v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 23-cv-006, 2023 WL 5000260 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023); and (2) the court could discern no non-frivolous basis for appeal based on the reasoning set out in its earlier dismissal order (ECF No. 34).
Effect of the ruling
This order denies the fee waiver for the appeal at the district court level. Curtis's appeal itself is not dismissed by this order; he retains the right to proceed with the appeal if he pays the required fees or seeks IFP status from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals directly.
Note on party names
The opinion flags that defendant 'Stamatis Zeris' appears to have been misidentified in the complaint as 'Zeris Stamatis.' See ECF No. 20 at 2.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.