From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Przekurat v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
May 15, 2018
Case No. 18-cv-723-pp (E.D. Wis. May. 15, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 18-cv-723-pp

05-15-2018

ROBERT PRZEKURAT, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2)

On May 8, 2018, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision denying his claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1. The plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.

In order to allow the plaintiff to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court first must decide whether the plaintiff has the ability to pay the filing fee, and if not, it must determine whether the lawsuit is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. §§1915(a) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Based on the information in the plaintiff's affidavit, the court concludes that he does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff indicates that he has monthly wages of $400 to $500 and expenses of $849 a month. Dkt. No. 2 at 2-3. He says that his parents "help out to balance budget." Id. at 2. He does not own a home, owns a car worth approximately $1,500 and has no cash or funds in a checking or savings account. Id. at 3. The court concludes from that information that the plaintiff has demonstrated that he cannot pay the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee.

The next step is to determine whether the case is frivolous. A case is frivolous if there is no arguable basis for relief either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Casteel v. Pieschek, 3 Fed. 1050, 1056 (7th Cir. 1993)). A person may obtain district court review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. 42 U.S.C. §405(g). The district court must uphold the Commissioner's final decision as long as the Commissioner used the correct legal standards and the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013).

The plaintiff's complaint alleges that the commissioner's unfavorable conclusions and findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence and/or are contrary to law and regulation. At this early stage in the case, and based on the information in the plaintiff's complaint, the court concludes that there may be a basis in law or in fact for the plaintiff's appeal of the Commissioner's decision, and that the appeal may have merit, as defined by 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court GRANTS the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without paying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.

Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 15th day of May, 2018.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ _________

HON. PAMELA PEPPER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Przekurat v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
May 15, 2018
Case No. 18-cv-723-pp (E.D. Wis. May. 15, 2018)
Case details for

Przekurat v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT PRZEKURAT, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

Date published: May 15, 2018

Citations

Case No. 18-cv-723-pp (E.D. Wis. May. 15, 2018)