Troy K. Scheffler, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-0409

Troy K. Scheffler,
Appellant,

vs.

Costco Wholesale Corporation,
Respondent.

Filed September 6, 2022
Reversed and remanded
Larson, Judge

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CV-22-1081

Troy K. Scheffler, Merrifield, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Andrew L. Marshall, Bassford Remele, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presidin g Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Larson, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARSON, Judge
Appellant Troy K. Scheffler appeals the district court’s decision to deny his
application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Because the district court abused its
discretion when it failed to determine that Scheffler receives need-based public assistance
and qualifies to proceed IFP, we reverse and remand.

2
FACTS
Scheffler sued respondent Costco Wholesale Corporation, alleging common -law
false imprisonment, assault, and discrimination based on his disability. In March 2022,
Scheffler filed an IFP application that included an affidavit and attachment. Scheffler’s
affidavit explained that he could not “support [his] fa mily and [himself] and also pay or
give security for costs.” The affidavit also stated that Scheffler receive s means-tested
public assistance through Minnesota’s Medical Assistance for Employed Persons with
Disabilities (MA -EPD) program, which reimburse s his Medicare part B premiums.
Scheffler attached one electronic funds transfer (EFT) receipt from Crow Wing County
Community Services showing that he received a $170.10 reimbursement for “MED PART
B” in March 2022.
The district court denied the IFP appl ication. The district court did not find the
action frivolous. Instead, the district court determined that Scheffler failed to “provide[]
the court with enough information to make a finding of indigency.” The district court
stated that it would keep the record open to allow Scheffler “to submit addition[al] evidence
to the court for consideration of the application.” According to the district court’s register
of actions, t he district court included form IFP102 and the Ramsey County Civil Bench
Guidelines with its letter directing Scheffler to “provide the court with new information.”
The district court did not explain how Scheffler’s affidavit and attachment failed to satisfy
the qualifying condition that Scheffler receive need -based public assistance. Scheffler did
3
not provide additional information to the district court. Scheffler now appeals the district
court’s decision to deny his IFP application.1
DECISION
We review a district court’s decision to deny IFP status for an abuse of discretion.
Cmty. Hous. Servs. – Park Towers, Inc. v. Gay, 954 N.W.2d 836, 840 (Minn. App. 2020),
rev. denied (Mar. 16, 2021). “A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is against
logic and the facts in the record.” State v. Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Minn. App. 2019).
A party who demonstrates an inability to pay filing fees and civil- litigation costs
may proceed “without prepayment” when granted IFP status. Minn. Stat. § 563.01,
subd. 3(a) (2020). To qualify for IFP status, a district court must first find the action
nonfrivolous, which it did here . Id., subd. 3(b) (2020). Second, the party must submit an
affidavit to the district court showing the party meets the eligibility requirements outlined
in statute. Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3 (2020). The affidavit must be “substantially in the
language required by this subdivision” and “not found by the court to be untrue.” Id., subd.
3(b). As relevant here, a party may demonstrate eligibility by showing the party “is
receiving public assistance described in section 550.37, subdivision 14.” Id. Under Minn.
Stat. § 550.37, subd. 14 (2020), “payment of Medicare part B premiums” demonstrates that
a party receives need -based public assistance. While MA -EPD is not generally a need -
based program, see Minn. Stat. § 256B.057, subd. 9(a) -(d) (2020), individuals enrolled in

1 Costco did not file a brief , and we ordered the appeal to proceed per Minn. R. Civ. App.
P. 142.03.
4
MA-EPD may receive Medicare part B premium reimbursement only if their income does
not exceed 200% of the federal poverty line, Minn. Stat. § 256B.057, subd. 9(j) (2020).
We agree with Scheffler that his affidavit demonstrates that he receives qualifying
need-based public assistance through MA-EPD. Although Scheffler did not fully complet e
form IFP102,2 he substantially used the language Minnesota law requires. See Minn. Stat.
§ 563.01, subd. 3(b) (2020) . Further, f orm IFP102 directs an affiant to attach evidence
showing the affiant receives public assistance , such as “[a] cancelled check from agency.”
The EFT receipt Scheffler attached to his affidavit showing Crow Wing Count y paid
Scheffler $170.10 for “MED PART B” satisfies that requirement. Finally, Scheffler’s
affidavit and attachment closely mirror Scheffler’s fee -waiver application in a prior
case. Scheffler, 932 N.W.2d at 61 (describing affidavit and attachment showing Scheffler
received medical benefits and an “Energy Assistance grant”). There, we concluded the
district court abused its discretion when it erroneously determined “ Scheffler [was] not
indigent” under Minn. Stat. § 609A.03, subd. 1 (2018). Id.
For these reasons, we conclude Scheffler meets the requirements to proceed IFP and
the district court abused its discretion when it concluded otherwise. We reverse and
remand to the district court with instructions to grant Scheffler’s IFP application.
Reversed and remanded.

2 Scheffler’s application tracked the beginning of form IFP102. But rather than provide
detailed financial and household information, Scheffler’s affidavit asserted, “Due to
receiving public assistance described under 550.37, sub. 14, ‘the court shall allow the
person to proceed in forma pauperis if the affidavit is substantially in the language required
by this subdivision’ [563.01 subd.(b)] . . . .”