Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services
Ezequiel Rivera, Jr. v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and Nestle USA Inc.
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03247
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and Nestle USA Inc., Judge Provinzino denied plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera, Jr.'s application to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal because he provided no specific grounds for his appeal and the court found the appeal frivolous.
Ezequiel Rivera, Jr., a pro se plaintiff attempting to appeal the denial of his post-judgment motion for relief from judgment without paying appellate filing fees. The ruling also affects the three defendants—Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and Nestle USA Inc.—who opposed the fee waiver.
What happened
In Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, and Nestle USA Inc. (Case No. 24-cv-3247), the district court previously dismissed plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera, Jr.'s complaint without prejudice on July 7, 2025. Rivera pursued multiple post-dismissal motions—including a motion to alter the judgment, a motion to disqualify the court, and a motion for relief from judgment—all of which were denied. His motion for relief from judgment argued that a Wisconsin state agency decision issued after the dismissal should allow him to file an amended complaint or transfer the case to Wisconsin.
After the court denied his motion for relief from judgment on March 20, 2026, Rivera filed a second notice of appeal and applied to proceed without paying court fees (known as proceeding 'in forma pauperis,' or IFP) on appeal. His filings stated only that he was appealing the March 20, 2026 order 'in its entirety,' without identifying any specific legal issues or arguments. All three defendants opposed the application, arguing the appeal was frivolous, and Rivera's reply asserted it was not frivolous but still offered no specific grounds.
Judge Provinzino denied Rivera's application to proceed without paying fees on appeal. Under the applicable rule, a court must deny fee-waiver status on appeal if the appeal is not taken in good faith, meaning the claims are factually or legally without merit. The court found two independent reasons to deny the application: Rivera failed to identify any issues he intended to raise on appeal, and the court could find no non-frivolous basis for the appeal, because the Wisconsin state decision Rivera relied upon post-dated the dismissal and was irrelevant to the reasons the complaint was originally dismissed.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services · No. 0:24-cv-03247
- Laura M. Provinzino
- Apr. 7, 2026
Background
The underlying action was dismissed without prejudice on July 7, 2025. Following that dismissal, plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera, Jr. filed multiple post-judgment motions: a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and a motion to disqualify the court under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Both were denied on September 19, 2025. Rivera also filed a first notice of appeal challenging the dismissal, which was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as of this order (No. 25-2773).
On February 11, 2026, Rivera filed a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)—a rule that allows a court to reopen a final judgment in extraordinary circumstances. Rivera argued that a decision from a Wisconsin state administrative body, issued after the July 7, 2025 dismissal, supported his claims and warranted either leave to file an amended complaint or transfer of the case to a federal district court in Wisconsin. The court denied that motion on March 20, 2026, finding that the Wisconsin decision was neither newly discovered evidence (in the legally relevant sense) nor relevant to the grounds on which the complaint was dismissed.
The IFP Application on Appeal
On March 24, 2026, Rivera filed a second notice of appeal and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)—that is, to pursue the appeal without paying the required filing fees—on the basis of financial hardship. His notice of appeal and IFP application stated only that he was appealing the March 20, 2026 order 'in its entirety,' without identifying any specific legal issues or arguments. All three defendants jointly opposed the application, arguing the appeal was frivolous. Rivera's reply asserted the appeal 'presents an arguable basis for review' but again provided no specific grounds.
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 the party intends to present on appeal. Under Rule 24(a)(3)(A), the district court must 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, citing the standard from Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Ruling and Reasoning
Judge Provinzino denied Rivera's IFP application (ECF No. 132) on two independent grounds.
First, Rivera's filings provided no actual grounds for the appeal. The court noted that without an explanation of the issues to be appealed, it cannot determine whether the appeal is taken in good faith, as required by statute, citing Lopez v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 23-cv-006, 2023 WL 5000260 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023).
Second, even looking past the absence of stated grounds, the court found no non-frivolous basis for the appeal. The Wisconsin state administrative decision Rivera cited post-dated the July 7, 2025 judgment and was irrelevant to the reasons the complaint was originally dismissed. Because Rivera's Rule 60(b) motion did not satisfy the requirements for extraordinary relief from judgment, and because he offered nothing more on appeal, the court concluded the appeal was frivolous.
Effect of This Order
This order denies Rivera's request to proceed without paying appellate filing fees. It does not itself dismiss the appeal; Rivera may still pursue the appeal if he pays the required fees or obtains IFP status from the Eighth Circuit. The first appeal (No. 25-2773) challenging the original dismissal remains pending before the Eighth Circuit.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.