Stefannie Dyson and Sean Wells-El v. Bartolomei

In Dyson and Wells-El v. Bartolomei, Lindahl-Pfieffer, Hennepin County District Court 4th District, and the State of Minnesota, the plaintiffs' underlying lawsuit had already been dismissed without prejudice on November 3, 2025. After filing a notice of appeal, plaintiffs Stefannie Dyson and Sean Wells-El submitted three separate applications asking the court to let them proceed without paying the appellate filing fee — a status commonly called proceeding 'in forma pauperis,' or IFP, which is available to people who cannot afford court costs without serious financial hardship.

The court reviewed Dyson's financial disclosures and found several reasons she did not qualify. Her reported monthly income of $2,400 placed her household at 136% of the federal poverty guidelines, and her income exceeded her monthly expenses. She also reported owning $200,000 in real estate. Beyond that, Dyson had already paid the $405 filing fee at the start of the case and reported spending $1,000–$1,500 on the litigation, with no explanation of what changed financially. The court also noted internal contradictions in her applications — she reported different monthly expense totals on different forms, and in one document said she owned no real property while in another reported $200,000 in real estate and $2,400 per month in rental income. As for co-plaintiff Wells-El, the applications provided no financial information about him whatsoever.

For all of these reasons, Judge Provinzino denied all three fee-waiver applications (filed as ECF Nos. 28, 29, and 30). The court noted that even when an applicant financially qualifies, a fee waiver must also be denied if the appeal is not brought in good faith, but because Dyson did not financially qualify, the court did not need to reach that question. The plaintiffs may still pursue their appeal if they pay the required filing fee.