Anderson v. 3M Company et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
In re: BAIR HUGGER FORCED AIR 	MDL No. 15-2666 (JNE/DTS)
WARMING DEVICES PRODUCTS 	ORDER
LIABILITY LITIGATION
This Document Relates to:
Case No. 17-cv-101 (Garry Anderson v. 3M Company and Arizant Healthcare, Inc.)
This case is before the Court on Garry Anderson’s motion to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. 24(a)(1). To qualify for in forma pauperis status on
appeal, a litigant who appeals from a judgment in a civil action must submit information
that demonstrates the litigant’s inability to pay, or give security for, the appellate filing
fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Even if the litigant is financially eligible to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis, the litigant may not appeal in forma pauperis if the district
court “certifies in writing that [the appeal] is not taken in good faith.” Id. § 1915(a)(3).
A party demonstrates good faith by seeking appellate review of issues that are not
frivolous. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
According to his notice of appeal, Anderson is appealing because he was “forced
to accept that [his] attorney asked to be released from [his] case.” In his motion to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, he stated that he is “asking for assistance” due to
his attorney’s withdrawal. Anderson did not object to the order that granted his
attorney’s motion to withdraw. His case was moved from Group 1 to Group 3 “[t]o
provide [him] sufficient time to obtain substitute counsel.” (Docket No. 25) Anderson
has “no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel.” Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d
CASE 0:17-cv-00101-JNE-DTS Doc. 37 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 2

2
940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013). As set forth in the November 2025 Report and
Recommendation, he “repeatedly failed to prosecute this case” in the months since his
attorney’s withdrawal.
Although the information submitted by Anderson indicates that he is financially
eligible to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, he has not demonstrated that he seeks
“appellate review of any issue not frivolous.” Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445. The Court
therefore certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith and denies his motion to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated
above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Anderson’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis [Docket Nos. 34
& 36] is DENIED.
Dated: February 20, 2026
s/Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge
CASE 0:17-cv-00101-JNE-DTS Doc. 37 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 2