Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
EZEQUIEL RIVERA, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SEDGWICK CLAIMS
MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
ACE FIRE UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, and
NESTLE USA INC.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-3247 (LMP/SGE)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IFP
ON APPEAL
On July 7, 2025, the Court dismissed Plaintiff Ezequiel Rivera’s complaint without
prejudice. 	See generally ECF No. 92. 	Rivera thereafter moved to alter or amend the
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), ECF No. 94, and moved to
disqualify this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), ECF No. 104. The Court denied both
motions on September 19, 2025. ECF No. 117. Prior to the Court’s September 19 order,
Rivera filed a notice of appeal seeking to challenge the Court’s dismissal order. 	ECF
No. 111. That appeal is now fully briefed and pending a decision from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See generally Rivera v. Sedgwick Claims Management, et
al., No. 25-2773 (8th Cir.).
On February 11, 2026, Rivera moved the Court for relief from judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). ECF No. 118. The crux of Rivera’s argument was
that a decision from a Wisconsin state administrative body—issued after the Court’s July 7,
CASE 0:24-cv-03247-LMP-SGE Doc. 138 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
2025 order dismissing Rivera’s complaint—would bolster his complaint and the Court
should allow him to file an amended complaint or should allow him to reopen the case for
the sole purpose of transferring it to a federal district court in Wisconsin. 	ECF No. 119
at 2. 	On March 20, 2026, the Court denied Rivera’s Rule 60(b) motion because the
Wisconsin state decision was neither newly discovered evidence nor relevant to the reasons
the Court dismissed his complaint. ECF No. 129 at 4–6.
Rivera then filed a second notice of appeal and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal on March 24, 2026. 	ECF Nos. 131, 132. 	Neither filing
provided any grounds for the appeal beyond stating that Rivera appeals the Court’s
Rule 60(b) order “in its entirety.” 	ECF No. 131 at 1. All three Defendants filed a joint
response and asked the Court to deny the IFP application because the appeal is frivolous.
ECF No. 133. 	Rivera filed a reply, in which he asserted that his appeal “presents an
arguable basis for review” and is not frivolous; but he provides no specific grounds for his
appeal. ECF No. 135 (referring to Rivera’s earlier notice expressly stating that “Plaintiff
appeals the March 20, 2026 order in its entirety”).
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, a litigant who seeks IFP status on
appeal must first “file a motion in the district court” and “state[] the issues that the party
intends to present on appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1). The Court must deny IFP status if
the appeal is not taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3)(A). “To determine whether
an appeal is taken in good faith, the Court must determine whether the claims to be decided
on appeal are factually or legally frivolous.” Smith v. Eischen, No. 23-cv-357 (JRT/DJF),
CASE 0:24-cv-03247-LMP-SGE Doc. 138 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2024 WL 2818335, at *1 (D. Minn. June 3, 2024) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989)).
Rivera’s notice of appeal, motion to proceed IFP on appeal, and reply provide no
actual grounds for the appeal, which by itself provides grounds to deny the motion. Lopez
v. Amazon.com Servs., LLC, No. 23-cv-006 (JRT/DLM), 2023 WL 5000260, at *1
(D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023) (“Without an explanation of the issues to be appealed, the Court
is unable to determine whether the appeal is taken in good faith, as required by statute.”).
And the Court can otherwise discern no basis for Rivera’s appeal that is not “factually or
legally frivolous.” 	Smith, 2024 WL 2818335, at *1. As the Court explained in its order
denying Rivera’s Rule 60(b) motion, the evidence Rivera submitted in support of his
motion, which post-dates the July 7, 2025 judgment, simply has no relevance to the reasons
the Court dismissed his complaint in the first place. See generally ECF No. 129. Rivera
therefore provides no grounds for the extraordinary relief from judgment he seeks.
Accordingly, the Court denies Rivera’s application to proceed IFP on appeal (ECF
No. 132).
Dated: April 7, 2026 	s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge
CASE 0:24-cv-03247-LMP-SGE Doc. 138 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 3