Charles Ray Johnson v. Walmart; South Dakota Parole Board; Wells Fargo Bank; OSL Retail Services, Inc.; John Doe, DCI Agent; and John/Jane Does 1-10, unidentified parole officers, police officers, or Walmart employees

• Court: District Court, D. South Dakota
• Decided: December 5, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-04102
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES RAY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, 4:25-CV-04102-RAL VS. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S WALMART; SOUTH DAKOTA PAROLE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN BOARD; WELLS FARGO BANK; OSL FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL RETAIL SERVICES, INC.; JOHN DOE, DCI Agent; and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, unidentified parole officers, police officers, or Walmart employees, Defendants.

Plaintiff Charles Ray Johnson filed a pro se lawsuit alleging state-law claims and that Defendants violated his Constitutional rights and various federal statutes. Docs. 1, 15. This Court granted Johnson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screened his complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Doc. 23. The Court dismissed all of Johnson’s claims and entered judgment in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice against Johnson. Doc. 23 at 19; Doc. 24. Johnson has now filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Doc. 26, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Doc. 28. “[I]n forma pauperis status does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution.” Lee v. McDonald’s Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000). But in forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3), “[a] party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further

authorization” unless the appeal is not taken in good faith, the court “finds that the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis[,]” or “a statute provides otherwise.” It appears that Johnson’s appeal is taken in good faith. This Court has reviewed the documentation Johnson submitted in support of his application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. There has not been any material change in Johnson’s financial status since he moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action. Compare Doc. 2 with Doc. 28. Because this Court permitted Johnson to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court action, Doc. 23 at 1-2, he is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Johnson’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Doc. 28, is granted. DATED December $5”, 2025. BY THE COURT: hes Mg ads LANGE CHIEF JUDGE