Engel v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 6/23/2017 GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Michelle Engel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MICHELLE A. ENGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-572-pp

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2)

On April 21, 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial review
of a final administrative decision denying her claim for supplemental security
income and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Dkt.
No. 1. The plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment
of the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. The Clerk of Courts reassigned the case to this
court following Chief Judge William C. Griesbach’s order of recusal. Dkt. No. 5.
In order to allow a plaintiff to proceed without paying the filing fee, the
court must first decide whether the plaintiff has the ability to pay the filing fee,
and if not, must determine whether the lawsuit is frivolous. 28 U.S.C.
§§1915(a) and (e)(2)(B)(i). According to her affidavit, although employed, the
plaintiff earns $500 each month. She is not married, but provides support for a
minor child “as needed.” Dkt. No. 2 at 1. In addition, she receives

1

approximately $1,300 a month in assistance from her parents. Id. at 2. The
plaintiff does not own a car, but uses one owned by her parents. The plaintiff’s
expenses include $419.77 for rent, $100 for credit card payments, $350 for
household expenses, $290 for car insurance and gasoline, and $180 for
utilities. Id. at 2-3. Based on the facts presented in the affidavit, the court
concludes that the plaintiff does not have the ability to pay the filing 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 Neitzke 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).
In her complaint, the plaintiff indicates that she received the Notice of
Decision on February 2, 2016, and the Notice of Appeals Council Action on
March 3, 2017. Dkt. 1 at 3. She alleges that she was disabled during the
relevant time period, and that the Commissioner’s unfavorable conclusions and
findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence and/or are contrary
to law. At this early stage in the case, the court concludes that there may be a
basis in law or fact for the plaintiff’s appeal of the Commissioner’s decision,
and that the appeal may have merit.

2

The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for more leave to proceed
without prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 23rd day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3