Amber Louise Justus v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, D. South Dakota
• Decided: June 2, 2026
• Docket: 4:25-cv-04148
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMBER LOUISE JUSTUS, 4:25-CV-04148-KES

Movant, ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO vs. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Movant, Amber Louise Justus, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, correct, or set aside her sentence. Docket 1. The court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss Justus’s § 2255 motion with prejudice, entered judgment in favor of respondent, and denied a certificate of appealability. Dockets 31, 32. Justus filed a notice of appeal (Docket 33) and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Docket 38). The Eighth Circuit historically has looked to district courts to rule on in forma pauperis motions for appeal and has held that the filing-fee provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act do not apply to habeas corpus actions. Malave v. Hedrick, 271 F.3d 1139, 1140 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). To determine whether a habeas petitioner qualifies for in forma pauperis status, the court need only assess (1) whether the petitioner can afford to pay the full filing fee, and (2) whether the petitioner’s appeal is taken in “good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), (3). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3) also provides that “[a] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action, or who was determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without

further authorization” unless the district court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). Justus’s appeal appears to be taken in good faith. In her underlying criminal proceeding, United States v. Justus, 4:23-CR-40024-KES (D.S.D.), Justus was determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense and was represented by court-appointed counsel. Id. at Docket 37. Justus’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, along with the supporting exhibit, demonstrates her inability to pay the $605.00 appellate filing fee. See

Docket 38; Docket 38-1. Thus, it is ORDERED that Justus’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Docket 38, is granted. DATED June 2, 2026.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier KAREN E. SCHREIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE