Anderson v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare
- Joan Ericksen
- 0:17-cv-00101
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Garry Anderson v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc., Judge Ericksen denied Garry Anderson's request to appeal without paying filing fees, certifying that his appeal is not taken in good faith because the issues he seeks to raise are frivolous.
Garry Anderson, the plaintiff in this products liability case, who sought to appeal without paying filing fees after his attorney withdrew from his case.
What happened
This case is part of a large multi-district lawsuit (a consolidated set of related cases from across the country) involving Bair Hugger forced air warming devices. Garry Anderson, the plaintiff, filed a motion asking the court to let him appeal a prior ruling without paying the usual appellate filing fees — a status sometimes called proceeding without paying, or 'in forma pauperis.' Anderson's stated reason for appealing was that he was 'forced to accept' his attorney's withdrawal from his case and was seeking 'assistance' as a result.
Under federal law, a court can allow someone to appeal without paying fees if they show they cannot afford to pay and that their appeal is brought in good faith — meaning they are raising at least one issue that is not frivolous. Anderson submitted financial information suggesting he could not afford the fees, so he met the financial part of the test. However, the court found that his appeal amounts to a challenge to his attorney's withdrawal, and noted that Anderson has no legal right to have an attorney appointed for him in a civil case. The court also noted that Anderson had repeatedly failed to move his case forward in the months after his attorney withdrew, as documented in a November 2025 Report and Recommendation.
Because Anderson did not identify any non-frivolous issue to raise on appeal, Judge Ericksen, sitting in the District of Minnesota, certified in writing that the appeal is not brought in good faith and denied Anderson's motion to proceed without paying filing fees. This means Anderson would need to pay the standard appellate filing fees if he wishes to continue his appeal.
The detailed version
This order arises within MDL No. 15-2666, a multi-district litigation (a procedural mechanism consolidating many related federal cases before a single court) concerning Bair Hugger forced air warming devices. The specific case is Garry Anderson v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-101.
Anderson filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1) to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) — that is, without prepaying appellate filing fees. The governing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, sets out a two-part test: (1) the litigant must demonstrate financial inability to pay the fees, and (2) the appeal must be taken in good faith, meaning it presents at least one non-frivolous issue. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). If the district court certifies in writing that the appeal is not taken in good faith, IFP status must be denied regardless of financial eligibility.
Anderson's stated basis for appeal was that he was 'forced to accept' his attorney's withdrawal. His IFP motion characterized the appeal as a request for 'assistance' in connection with that withdrawal. The court noted several relevant facts: Anderson did not object to the order granting his attorney's withdrawal; his case was moved from Group 1 to Group 3 specifically to give him time to find substitute counsel; he has no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case (citing Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013)); and, as set out in a November 2025 Report and Recommendation, Anderson had 'repeatedly failed to prosecute this case' in the months following his attorney's departure.
While the court found Anderson financially eligible for IFP status based on the information he submitted, it concluded he failed to identify any non-frivolous appellate issue. Accordingly, Judge Joan N. Ericksen certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith and denied Anderson's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 34 & 36). The denial means Anderson must pay the standard filing fees to pursue his appeal.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.