Opinion
22-cv-646-pp
06-02-2022
MARK A. HERREN, 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 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. 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 he does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff's request indicates that his is not employed, he is not married, and he has no dependents he is responsible for supporting. Dkt. No. 3 at 1. The plaintiff lists no monthly wages or salary, id. at 2, and he indicates that both his rent ($515 per month) and other household expenses ($240 per month) are subsidized, id. He does not show any other monthly expenses. Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff owns a 2003 Ford XLT Ranger; he has “no Idea” of the value and states the truck is “Rusty But Still Runs.” Id. at 3. The plaintiff does not own his home or any other property of value, and he has no cash on hand or in a checking or savings account. Id. at 3-4. 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 Social Security Disability Benefits and that the decision finding him not disabled “is not in accordance with the purpose and intent of the Social Security Act, nor is it in accordance with the evidence, but contrary thereto, in that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to law.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2 and is contrary 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. 3.