Opinion
A20-1190
03-09-2021
Troy K. Scheffler, Appellant, v. Seth Jacob Sergent Leventhal, et al., Respondents.
ORDER OPINION
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-20-10777 Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Troy Scheffler, pro se, challenges the district court's denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his defamation action.
2. "We review a district court's denial of IFP status for an abuse of discretion." State v. Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Minn. App. 2019) (citing Maddox v. Dep't of Human Servs., 400 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Minn. App. 1987) (Scheffler I).
3. Appellant was denied IFP status because the district court found that he failed to establish indigence. The district court explained this finding: "[Appellant's] only evidence of eligibility . . . was evidence that [he] received Medical Assistance for Employed Persons with Disabilities (MA-EPD). This program . . . does not have income requirements. . . . [I]ts eligibility requirements . . . do not relate to income."
4. The district court also denied appellant's application to proceed IFP in the appeal from that decision, and appellant sought review of the denial of IFP for the appeal. This court denied appellant's petition to proceed with this appeal IFP on the same basis as the district court: "[Appellant's] showing that he receives a form of assistance that does not depend on indigence is insufficient to establish the required inability to pay." Scheffler v. Leventhal, No. A20-1190 (Minn. App. Oct. 5, 2020) (order), review denied (Minn. Dec. 29, 2020).
5. The Minnesota Department of Human Services provides a website stating that, to qualify for MA-EPD, a person must, among other things, "[b]e certified disabled" and "[h]ave monthly earnings of more than $65"; it also provides that "[t]here is no income limit for MA-EPD." (Emphasis added.) https://mn.gov/dhs/people-we-serve/people-with-disabilities/health-care/health-care-programs/programs-and-services/ma-epd.jsp (last consulted March 3, 2021). Thus, receiving MA-EPD cannot be evidence of indigence.
6. Appellant relies on Scheffler I, but that case is distinguishable. It concerns an application for IFP status supported by "a document from Crow Wing County Social Services stating that [appellant] was 'still eligible for [health care] benefits,' which referred to the 'program' 'MA,' and a document from Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota stating that he was eligible for an 'Energy Assistance grant [of] $343.00.'" 932 N.W.2d at 61. This court concluded that these documents were an adequate showing of indigence. Id. Here, the only document provided was not evidence of indigence.
7. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant IFP status.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The district court's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Dated: March 9, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Francis J. Connolly