Opinion
23-cv-969-pp
07-27-2023
DEREK SHAW, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2)
HON. PAMELA PEPPER, Chief United States District Judge
The plaintiff has 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. He also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.
To allow the plaintiff to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court first must decide whether the plaintiff can pay the fee; 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 facts 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 is not employed, he is not married and he has no dependents he is responsible for supporting. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. The only income listed by the plaintiff is FoodShare of $280 per month. Id. at 2. The plaintiff states that his monthly expenses are $1,300 (he says he is “supposed to contribute $600/mo to rent” but is unable to do so; he says that he owes $1,500 in credit card debt but can't afford to pay anything toward that debt now; he lists other household expenses of $280 for food, $220 for his cell phone bill and $200 for utilities (electric)). Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff does not own a car, his home or any other property of value; he says that he has “negative sums” in a checking or savings account. Id. at 3-4. The plaintiff states, “Claimant is currently living with a friend; he gets help with monthly expenses from family + friends-only source of income now is FoodShare.” Id. at 4. The plaintiff has demonstrated that he cannot pay the $350 filing fee and $52 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 F.3d 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 indicates that he was denied benefits for lack of disability, that he is disabled, and that the conclusions and findings of fact by the Commissioner when denying benefits are not supported by substantial evidence and are contrary to law and regulation. Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. 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 prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.