Ploetz v. Winona County
Jason Ploetz v. Winona County; City of Stockton; and The Office of Senator Jeremy Miller
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:25-cv-03665
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Ploetz v. Winona County, Judge Provinzino granted plaintiff Jason Ploetz's application to proceed without paying court fees on appeal, but only for the claims he actually raised in his original complaint — not for new claims he tried to introduce for the first time on appeal.
Pro se litigants (self-represented individuals) seeking to appeal a dismissed complaint without paying court fees, particularly those with limited income, and parties raising disability-related claims under the ADA against government entities.
What happened
In Ploetz v. Winona County, Jason Ploetz sued Winona County, the City of Stockton, and the Office of Senator Jeremy Miller, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and a state law claim related to the destruction of native wildflowers. The court had previously dismissed his complaint without prejudice — meaning he could potentially refile — after a required early screening review. Ploetz then filed a notice of appeal and asked the court to let him proceed without paying the filing fees, a status known as proceeding 'in forma pauperis' or IFP, which is available to people who cannot afford court costs.
The court examined two things: whether Ploetz was financially eligible and whether his appeal was brought in good faith (meaning not legally or factually frivolous). His income was shown to be 68% of the federal poverty guideline, with expenses exceeding income, so he qualified financially. However, in his IFP application, Ploetz listed several claims he wanted to raise on appeal — including Rehabilitation Act claims and constitutional claims — that he had never included in his original complaint. The court found those new claims could not support IFP status because appeals courts do not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal.
Judge Provinzino ruled that Ploetz's actual claims — the ADA claims and the related state-law claims — were not frivolous enough to deny IFP status, even though they had been dismissed for pleading problems. Because the state-law claims are connected to the ADA claims, the court granted IFP status covering all claims Ploetz actually alleged, but not the new claims he attempted to introduce for the first time on appeal.
The detailed version
This order addresses Jason Ploetz's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — that is, without prepaying court fees — on appeal in the District of Minnesota, Case No. 25-cv-3665.
Background
On September 30, 2025, the court dismissed Ploetz's complaint without prejudice following a mandatory preservice screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires courts to review complaints filed by IFP litigants and dismiss those that are frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim. The original complaint alleged claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and a state-law claim concerning the destruction of native wildflowers, against Winona County, the City of Stockton, and the Office of Senator Jeremy Miller. The court later extended Ploetz's deadline to file a notice of appeal to December 1, 2025. Ploetz timely filed his notice of appeal and simultaneously filed the IFP application at issue.
Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1), a litigant seeking IFP status on appeal must file a motion in the district court and identify the issues to be presented on appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), a court must deny IFP status if the appeal is not taken in good faith. The court applies a 'factually or legally frivolous' standard to assess good faith, citing Smith v. Eischen, No. 23-cv-357, 2024 WL 2818335, at *1 (D. Minn. June 3, 2024).
Financial Eligibility
The court found Ploetz financially eligible for IFP status. His income was at 68% of the applicable federal poverty guideline, and his liabilities and regular expenses exceeded his income. The court cited Cassell v. Cassell, No. 09-cv-1112, 2011 WL 13202147 (D. Minn. Apr. 7, 2011), for the proposition that income below 125% of the poverty guideline qualifies a litigant for IFP status.
Scope of Appeal — New Claims Rejected
In his IFP application, Ploetz listed several issues he intended to raise on appeal, including claims under the Rehabilitation Act, constitutional claims under the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, retaliation, intimidation, interference, environmental violations, and denial of access to courts. The court noted that Ploetz's original complaint (ECF No. 1 at 4) contained none of these claims — only ADA, MHRA, and the state-law wildflower claim. Relying on Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004), the court noted that the Eighth Circuit does not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal. Therefore, IFP status could not be granted to support appeal of these nonexistent claims.
Scope of Appeal — Actual Claims Not Frivolous
The court found that the claims Ploetz actually alleged — the ADA claims and the state-law claims — were not 'factually or legally frivolous,' even though they were dismissed for pleading deficiencies. The court further noted that the state-law claims are jurisdictionally tethered to the ADA claims: the court's decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims depends on whether the ADA claims are plausibly alleged. Accordingly, IFP status was granted for those claims.
Ruling
Judge Laura M. Provinzino granted Ploetz's application to proceed IFP on appeal (ECF No. 13), limited to the claims actually alleged in his complaint. The order was entered December 3, 2025.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.