Brianna Clerk v. HCMC Hospital

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-0672

Brianna Clerk,
Appellant,

vs.

HCMC Hospital,
Respondent.

Filed January 5, 2026
Affirmed
Bratvold, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-25-6184

Brianna Clerk, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Mary F. Moriarty, Hennepin County Attorney, Chase Webber, Assistant County Attorney,
Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Schmidt, Judge; and Bentley,

Judge.

NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

BRATVOLD, Judge

Appellant seeks review of the district court’s order denying her fee-waiver

application, which, if granted, would allow her to commence a civil action “without

payment of fees, costs, and security for costs” as provided in Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3
(2024). Because the district court determined that appellant’s civil action is frivolous and

appellant does not challenge the frivolousness determination on appeal, we affirm.

FACTS

On April 8, 2025, appellant Brianna Clerk filed a handwritten summons and

complaint against respondent Hennepin County Medical Center Hospital (hospital).

Clerk’s complaint stated:

1. They wrongfully committed me because of a lie told on
me.

2. They wrongfully had me on a high dose [of] medicine
that almost took my life. I couldn’t walk, move, talk,
[or] eat.

3. They labeled me as something I’m not.

4. They said I was dangerous [and] tried to paint a false
image [of] me. I’ll never harm people. I had no clue why
I was there.

The complaint asked for relief of “$85.5 million” in damages, as well as “any other relief

the court feels is fair and equitable.”

That same day, Clerk applied for a fee waiver by filing an affidavit that responded

to each inquiry on a form document. Among other things, Clerk’s affidavit stated that she

has “good reasons for making this request” and receives public assistance.

On April 9, 2025, the district court filed a written order denying Clerk’s fee-waiver

application. The district court checked a box on a form and stated in its order: “The action

is frivolous. The complaint fails to provide any facts to support the allegations.”

2
 On April 18, 2025, Clerk reapplied for a fee waiver. The district court denied the

application that same day, reasoning that the “application was denied on 04/08/2025.”

Clerk appeals.

DECISION

The sole issue before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying

Clerk’s fee-waiver application. A district court “shall allow” a civil action to proceed

“without payment of fees, costs, and security for costs” if two requirements are satisfied:

(1) the plaintiff is “financially unable to pay” litigation costs and (2) the underlying action

“is not of a frivolous nature.” Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3(a)-(b). Appellate courts review

the denial of a fee-waiver application for abuse of discretion. Nelson v. Arroyo Ins. Servs.,

Inc., 23 N.W.3d 415, 418 (Minn. App. 2025).

On appeal, Clerk, who is self-represented, submitted an informal brief—a one-page

document arguing that she “can’t afford to pay” filing fees in district court. In her brief,

Clerk emphasizes that she is “low income,” citing that she receives “general assistance”

and “food stamps.” In response, hospital filed a brief stating that it “does not dispute that

[Clerk] is unable to pay the litigation costs.” Instead, hospital argues that “the district court

appropriately denied [Clerk’s] fee waiver application because the action is ‘frivolous’ and

the court set forth an adequate basis for its determination.”

In her brief, Clerk does not argue that the district court erred in its determination

that her civil action is frivolous. Informal briefs “shall contain a concise statement of the

party’s arguments on appeal.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.01, subd. 1 (emphasis added); see

also Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 128.02, subd. 1(b) (requiring a “concise statement of the legal

3
issue or issues involved” in appellant’s brief), (d) (requiring “the contentions of the party

with respect to the issues presented”).

Any issues not raised in an appellant’s opening brief are generally forfeited. Hunter

v. Anchor Bank, N.A., 842 N.W.2d 10, 17 (Minn. App. 2013), rev. denied (Minn. Mar. 18,

2014) (“[A]n argument for reversal that is not raised in an appellant’s principal brief is

forfeited.”). Self-represented litigants are “generally held to the same standards as

attorneys,” although “some accommodations may be made for” them. Fitzgerald v.

Fitzgerald, 629 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Minn. App. 2001).

In some cases, appellate courts decline to deem an issue forfeited—even when an

appellant fails to support the appeal with argument or citation to legal authority—if the

appellate court determines that the district court’s error is obvious and that there is no

prejudice to the respondent. See Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co.,

187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971) (stating that forfeited issues may be reviewed if

“prejudicial error is obvious on mere inspection”). For example, in a nonprecedential

opinion, Jemison v. Child Protection Service, this court considered an appeal from an order

denying a fee-waiver application and declined to find forfeiture, even though the

appellant’s brief did not “mention the fee-waiver denial directly.” No. A25-0335, 2025 WL

3265021, at *2-3 (Minn. App. Nov. 24, 2025). This court reasoned that the district court’s

failure to state a reason for its fee-waiver determination was an obvious error and therefore

remanded for findings. Id. at *3.

4
 But we see no obvious error in the district court’s order because it stated a reason

for determining that Clerk’s action was frivolous. 1 Because Clerk does not argue that the

district court’s frivolousness determination is erroneous, we conclude that the issue is

forfeited on appeal.

Finally, we consider the effect of forfeiting the frivolousness issue. As discussed

above, under the relevant statute, a district court shall grant a fee-waiver application if two

requirements are satisfied—the applicant is financially “unable to pay the fees” and the

action is “not of a frivolous nature.” Minn. Stat. § 563.01, subd. 3. Because Clerk’s

informal brief did not challenge the frivolousness determination on appeal and this

determination is a sufficient basis to affirm the district court’s order, we affirm the district

court’s decision to deny Clerk’s fee-waiver application. See Hunter, 842 N.W.2d at 17

(affirming summary judgment on four counts of a complaint after determining that the

appellant forfeited review because its primary brief did not challenge “an independent and

sufficient basis for the district court’s entry of summary judgment”).

Affirmed.

1
In Nelson, this court remanded an order denying a fee-waiver application when the district
court “checked a box” stating that Nelson’s complaint was “frivolous” but “did not set forth
a basis for that determination.” 23 N.W.3d at 418. This court determined that the district
court did not explain its reason and no “obvious reason” was apparent. Id. Because this
court could not “discern a basis for the district court’s frivolousness determination from
the record on appeal,” we concluded that no “meaningful appellate review” was possible
and remanded for “findings on Nelson’s request.” Id. at 419. This court “emphasized that
a district court need not make extensive findings, but it should set forth a reason for its
decision to enable meaningful appellate review.” Id.

5