Opinion
Case No. 18-cv-43-pp
01-22-2018
DANIEL L. ARNOLD, 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 January 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 facts presented 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 no income other than $192 per month in food assistance. Dkt. No. 2 at 2. The plaintiff has received a $5,000 grant for college tuition/books and $7,000 in student loans, id., but he notes "[a]ll of the money received from grants and student loans for school has been used up and it is not anticipated that Mr. Arnold will receive any more," id. at 4. The affidavit lists $1,195 per month in expenses. Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff indicates that he does not own an automobile, has no cash or checking/savings accounts and does not own any other property of value. Id. at 3-4. 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 indicates that he believes 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 22nd day of January, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ _________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge