Opinion
A23-0687
01-03-2024
Richard Preston Blackwell, Appellant, v. Tubman, Respondent, Maplewood Police Department, Respondent.
Ramsey County District Court File No. 62-CV-23-179
Considered and decided by Slieter, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Larson, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Randall J. Slieter, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Appellant Richard Preston Blackwell challenges an order denying his in forma pauperis (IFP) application based on the district court's finding that Blackwell's lawsuit is frivolous. Because the district court is not required to make additional findings other than determining that the action is frivolous, and because the district court acted within its discretion to determine the action is frivolous, we affirm.
2. In January 2023, Blackwell filed a complaint against respondents Tubmanand the Maplewood Police Department in Ramsey County District Court, along with an application to proceed IFP. The district court denied the application to proceed IFP by a form order, checking a box indicating that the action is frivolous. Blackwell filed two additional IFP applications in February and March, which the district court also denied by a form order, again checking a box indicating that the action is frivolous. Blackwell appeals.
Tubman is a nonprofit organization that serves individuals and families located in the Twin Cities by offering shelter and housing, mental- and chemical-health services, legal services, youth programs, workshops, and support groups. Tubman, Get Help, https://www.tubman.org/get-help/ [https://perma.cc/3A3Y-37NA].
Respondents did not file a brief in this appeal and, pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 142.03, we determine the matter on the merits.
3. A district court may allow a civil action to proceed "without prepayment of fees, costs and security for costs" if the district court finds "the action is not of a frivolous nature." Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3 (2022). A person applying to proceed IFP must file an affidavit stating "the nature of the action," "a belief that affiant is entitled to redress," and that affiant "is financially unable to pay the fees, costs and security for costs." Id. We review a district court's denial of an IFP application for abuse of discretion. State v. Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Minn.App. 2019). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is "against logic and the facts in the record." Id.
4. We discern two arguments raised in Blackwell's pro se brief to this court and address each argument in turn.
5. First, Blackwell claims that the district court erred by failing to make a specific finding of fact as required by Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3. Section 563.01 requires the district court to make "a finding . . . that the action is not of a frivolous nature." The statute does not require any "finding of fact" beyond the finding of frivolousness. The district court completed the form order by checking a box that states: "The action is frivolous." In so doing, the district court found that Blackwell's proposed action is frivolous. The district court did not err by failing to make a more specific finding.
6. Second, Blackwell challenges the district court's determination that his action is frivolous. A civil claim is frivolous if it is "without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for a modification or reversal of existing law." Maddox v. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 400 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Minn.App. 1987) (quotation omitted). According to Blackwell, he has made "good faith allegations the Defendant has participated in acts of discrimination." Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 363A.11, subd. 1(a) (2022), "[i]t is an unfair discriminatory practice . . . to deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color, . . . or sex."
7. Blackwell's complaint appears to stem from a 2017 interaction during which Blackwell was told that he could not be at Tubman and a subsequent arrest for suspected trespassing. Blackwell claims Tubman denied him a public service by refusing to screen him for legal services, and he states that Tubman, to conceal the discriminatory act, falsely reported to law enforcement that he refused to leave the building. Blackwell further claims that Maplewood Police officers conducted an unlawful traffic stop that led to his arrest. His complaint appears to suggest that officers, acting upon information from Tubman, suspected Blackwell of violating an order for protection by visiting Tubman. Blackwell's complaint, however, fails to allege facts that would support an inference that Tubman or the officers acted because of his race, color, or sex. Thus, the district court's determination that Blackwell's action is frivolous is not "against logic and facts in the record." Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d at 60.
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.