Compton v. Astrue

Filing 6

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Marvin E. Aspen on 1/17/2012:Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis 4 is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue summons and complaint to plaintiff's counsel for service on defendants. A status hearing is set for 2/23/2012 at 10:30 A.M. Plaintiff is to notify the defendants of status date. (For further detail see written opinion). Mailed notice(smm)

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Marvin Aspen

CASE NUMBER

11 C 8305

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

1/17/2012

Compton vs. Astrue

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (4) is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue
summons and complaint to plaintiff’s counsel for service on defendants. A status hearing is set for 2/23/12 at
10:30 a.m. Plaintiff is to notify the defendants of status date.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
(Reserved for use by the Court)

ORDER
Presently before us is Plaintiff Joy Compton’s application to proceed in forma pauperis in her lawsuit against
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security. Before granting leave to file in forma pauperis, we must first
determine whether or not Plaintiff is indigent. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). We must also conduct an initial review of
Plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss the action if we find that: (1) it is frivolous or malicious; (2) it fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) it seeks damages from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I)-(iii). As to the second factor, failure to state a claim, we apply the test for dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6), which requires “that a complaint contain ‘enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its
face.’” Moore v. F.B.I, 283 Fed. Appx. 397, 399, 2008 WL 2521089, at *1 (7th Cir. June 25, 2008) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)); see also George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 608 (7th Cir. 2007).
In support of her allegation of poverty, Plaintiff submitted the required financial affidavit. She states that she is
not currently employed. (Aff. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff states that she receives $318 monthly in welfare assistance, as well as
support from food stamps. (Id. ¶ 4.) She further declares that she has no additional sources of income, no assets,
and no bank accounts containing more than $200. (Id. ¶¶ 4–9.) She is responsible for the care of her teenaged
dependent child, and participates in a housing assistance program after being homeless. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff’s
annual income is less than $9000 (even including the value of her food stamps), placing her well under the poverty
guideline for a two-person household as established by the Department of Health & Human Services. (See Health
& Human Services 2011 Poverty Guidelines, setting the guideline at $14,710 for a two-person household.) We
thus find Plaintiff’s allegation of poverty to be true.
According to the complaint, the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s application for disability
benefits. (Compl. ¶¶ 2–7.) Plaintiff alleges that this determination does not comport with the purposes of the
Social Security Act and, moreover, is contrary to the evidence in this matter. (Id. ¶ 7.) Based on our initial review
of the complaint, we conclude that Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted.
11C8305 Compton vs. Astrue

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
For the foregoing reasons, we grant Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. It is so ordered.

11C8305 Compton vs. Astrue

Page 2 of 2