Gouchenouer v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 7

ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED 3 . Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 5/31/2016. (ceg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
KARLA J. GOUCHENOUER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:16-CV-551-NJR-CJP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
By Complaint filed on May 17, 2016, Karla Gouchenouer seeks judicial review of a
final decision by the Commissioner of the United States Social Security Administration,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). That decision denied Gouchenouer’s claim for social
security benefits. Now before the Court is Gouchenouer’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”), i.e., without prepaying the filing fee (Doc. 3).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) authorizes a federal district court to allow a civil case to
proceed without prepayment of fees, if the movant “submits an affidavit that includes a
statement of all assets [she] possesses [showing] that [she] is unable to pay such fees or
give security therefor.” Gouchenouer has done so in this case (Doc. 3).
The Court’s inquiry does not end here, however, because § 1915(e)(2) requires
careful threshold scrutiny of the complaint filed by an IFP plaintiff. The statute requires
the Court to dismiss any complaint if (a) the allegation of poverty is untrue, (b) the action
is frivolous or malicious, (c) the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or (d) the action seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
Page 1 of 2

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Gouchenouer’s complaint survives § 1915 review. Her sworn motion and
affidavit establish that she is indigent for purposes of IFP review. While Gouchenouer
currently receives $1,162 per month from her Social Security Disability Benefits, she only
has $300 in her checking and savings account. Gouchenouer demonstrates that she has
substantial expenses/debts, leaving exceedingly little discretionary income. Under these
circumstances, the filing fee presents a significant hardship, and the Court cannot
conclude that Gouchenouer’s allegation of poverty is “untrue” or that the action is
frivolous or malicious. Gouchenouer alleges that she has exhausted her administrative
remedies, her complaint does not fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
and the named Defendant is not immune from suit for the requested relief.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for pauper status (Doc. 3).
Typically, after granting pauper status, the Court would direct the Clerk’s Office to
prepare and issue summons for the named Defendant. But Gouchenouer is represented
by counsel (attorney David W. Sutterfield of Effingham, Illinois). Therefore, the Court
leaves to counsel the responsibility of accomplishing service of process. If Mr. Sutterfield
believes that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3) requires the
United States Marshal to serve process, he should immediately file a motion with the
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 31, 2016
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Page 2 of 2