Opinion
22-cv-89-pp
01-25-2022
JODI FLEISCHMAN, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 3)
HON. PAMELA PEPPER Chief United States District Judge.
The plaintiff has filed a complaint seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1. She also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3.
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 she does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff's affidavit indicates that she is not employed, she is not married, and she has no dependents she is responsible for supporting. Dkt. No. 3 at 1. The plaintiff lists as sources of income $253 per month from “SSDI” and $340 per month from Foodshare. Id. at 2. The plaintiff's monthly expenses total $764 ($114 lot rent for mobile home, $340 groceries, $180 utilities, $40 cell phone, $60 gas, $30 hygiene products). Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff owns a 2002 Chevy Silverado, worth approximately $400, and a mobile home, worth approximately $500. Id. at 3. The plaintiff owns no other property of value and she has no cash on hand or in a savings or checking account. Id. at 3-4. The plaintiff states, “[m]y daughter has been helping pay my utilities and other bills, ” Id. at 4. The plaintiff has demonstrated that she 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 she was denied social security benefits for lack of disability, that she is disabled, and that the conclusions and findings of fact of the Commissioner when denying benefits are not supported by substantial evidence and are contrary to law and regulation. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. 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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3.