The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Thomsen et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JULIE A. THOMSEN, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
Case No. 1:24-cv-1131
Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
This is an interpleader action concerning the proper beneficiary or beneficiaries of a life
insurance policy. The Court entered default judgment directing disbursement of funds on October
24, 2025. (ECF No. 76.) Defendant Howe has filed a notice of appeal and a request to proceed
without payment of the filing fee on appeal. (ECF Nos. 77, 82.)
A non-prisoner desiring to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis must obtain pauper status
under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a). See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803–
04 (6th Cir.1999). Rule 24(a) provides that if a party seeks pauper status on appeal, she must first
file a motion in the district court, along with a supporting affidavit. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1).
However, Rule 24(a) also provides that if the district court certifies that an appeal would not be
taken in good faith, or otherwise denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the party must file her
motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)-(5); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (providing that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the
trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith”).
Case 1:24-cv-01131-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 84, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 1
of 2

2
Good faith is judged objectively, see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1961),
and an appeal is not taken in good faith if the issue presented is frivolous, defined as lacking an
arguable basis either in fact or law. See Dellis v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 257 F.3d 508, 511 (6th Cir.
2001). For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58), Order Adopting
in Part (ECF No. 64), Order directing Defendant Thomsen to provide payment information (ECF
No. 65), and Order overruling objections and denying various motions (ECF No. 75), Defendant’s
appeal is frivolous and lacking in good faith.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s request to proceed without payment of the filing fee
(ECF No. 82) is DENIED. If Defendant wishes to proceed with her appeal, she must pay the
$605.00 appellate fee to the Clerk of this Court within 28 days of this order. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1913, 1917; 6 Cir. I.O.P. 3; Court of Appeals Miscellaneous Fee Schedule § 1 (Dec. 1, 2023).
Alternatively, Defendant may file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of
Appeals pursuant to the requirement set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2025 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou
HALA Y. JARBOU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-01131-HYJ-SJB ECF No. 84, PageID.<pageID> Filed 10/29/25 Page 2
of 2