From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Breselow v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Feb 7, 2008
Case No. 08-C-122 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 7, 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 08-C-122.

February 7, 2008


DECISION AND ORDER


On February 4, 2008, Mark Breselow ("Breselow") filed this appeal from the defendant's decision denying his application for disability benefits. Breselow requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). To authorize a litigant to proceed IFP, the Court must make two determinations: (1) whether the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing the action; and (2) whether the action warrants dismissal because it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) (e)(2).

According to Breselow's financial affidavit, numerous luxury items are included amongst his monthly expenses: clothing ($75.00), telephone ($72.38), internet ($9.95), television ($19.95), donations and contributions ($100), and entertainment (?). Breselow also claims to spend $250/month on transportation, which is strange since he owns two cars. Breselow owns guns valued at $2000 and he currently has $897 available to him in a checking account. Finally, Breselow owns $71,828.01 in equity against a home valued at $106,000.00, and he apparently has a balance remaining on a home equity loan. Accordingly, the Court must conclude that Breselow can afford to pay the filing fee ($350.00) for this action.

Section 1915(e)(2)(A) provides that "the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is untrue." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Under the plain language of the statute, the Court must Breselow's complaint because he "is not sufficiently poor to qualify for in forma pauperis status. . . ." Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000).

NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

SO ORDERED,

1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed IFP [Docket No. 2] is DENIED; and
2. This matter is DISMISSED.


Summaries of

Breselow v. Astrue

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Feb 7, 2008
Case No. 08-C-122 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 7, 2008)
Case details for

Breselow v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:MARK A. BRESELOW, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Date published: Feb 7, 2008

Citations

Case No. 08-C-122 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 7, 2008)