Guevara v. Eric C. Tostrud
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-01273
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Guevara v. Tostrud, Judge Menendez denied Peter Michael Guevara's request to appeal for free, certifying the appeal is not taken in good faith.
Incarcerated individuals who wish to challenge matters related to their conviction through civil lawsuits and seek to appeal without paying court fees — particularly those whose claims are dismissed under the Heck v. Humphrey rule barring such suits until the underlying conviction is overturned.
What happened
This case, Guevara v. Tostrud, involves plaintiff Peter Michael Guevara, whose lawsuit was dismissed without the ability to refile on April 28, 2026, because the court found his claims were barred under a legal rule (from Heck v. Humphrey) that prevents certain challenges to a conviction from being brought as a civil lawsuit until the conviction has been overturned. After the dismissal, Mr. Guevara filed a notice of appeal seeking to have a higher court review the decision.
To pursue his appeal without paying court fees — a process known as proceeding 'in forma pauperis,' or IFP — Mr. Guevara submitted an application along with a motion asking the court to accept and file a certified statement of his prison trust account. The trust account statement is required to show whether someone qualifies financially for fee-waiver status.
Judge Katherine Menendez granted the motion to accept and file the certified trust account statement, but denied the application to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The court certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith — a legal finding meaning the appeal is factually or legally without merit — which is the basis for denying the fee waiver. Mr. Guevara may still pursue his appeal but would need to pay the required fees or seek IFP status from the appellate court.
The detailed version
- Guevara v. Eric C. Tostrud · No. 0:26-cv-01273
- Katherine Menendez
- June 22, 2026
Background
On April 28, 2026, the court dismissed this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), which allows a court to screen and dismiss a prisoner's civil complaint before service if the claims are legally deficient. The dismissal was based on the rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), which bars a plaintiff from pursuing a civil claim that, if successful, would necessarily imply the invalidity of an existing criminal conviction — unless that conviction has already been overturned, expunged, or otherwise invalidated.
Pending Motions
Following dismissal, Mr. Guevara filed a notice of appeal. Two motions then came before the court:
1. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) on Appeal (Dkt. 17): A request to appeal without prepaying court fees, available to litigants who cannot afford them. 2. Motion to Accept and File Certified Trust Account Statement (Dkt. 18): A request that the court formally receive and file Mr. Guevara's certified prison trust account statement, which is typically required to support an IFP application.
Rulings
Motion to Accept Trust Account Statement The court granted the motion to accept and file the certified trust account statement (Dkt. 18).
IFP Application on Appeal The court denied the appellate IFP application (Dkt. 17). The denial rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), which requires a court to certify whether an IFP appeal is taken in good faith before allowing it to proceed without fees. The court certified that the appeal is not taken in good faith, citing the standard that an appeal lacks good faith when "the claims to be decided on appeal are factually or legally frivolous." See Smith v. Eischen, No. 23-cv-357 (JRT/DJF), 2024 WL 2818335, at 1 (D. Minn. June 3, 2024) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)).
Significance
The court's certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith means fee-waiver status for the appeal is denied at the district court level. This order does not itself prevent Mr. Guevara from appealing; he may still seek IFP status from the appellate court or pay the required fees to proceed. The underlying dismissal without prejudice occurred under the Heck bar.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.