Boeckman v. Saul

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 4/27/2021 GRANTING #2 plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying filing fee. (cc: all counsel)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

TANYA M. BOECKMAN,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 21-cv-530-pp
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2)

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. 2.
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 request indicates
that she is not employed, she is not married, and she has no dependents she is
responsible for supporting. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. The plaintiff’s only listed source of
income is $1,500 per month from “daughter.” Id. at 2. The plaintiff lists
monthly expenses totaling $1,150 ($550 rent, $600 other household expenses).
1

Id. Under other monthly expenses, the plaintiff lists $8,500 in “medical.” Id. at
3. The court assumes that is not a monthly expense, rather it is total amount
the plaintiff owes and that she makes some monthly payment toward that debt.
The plaintiff owns a 2019 Toyota Corolla worth approximately $10,000, she
does not own her home or any other property of value, and she has no cash on
hand or in a checking or savings account. Id. at 3-4. 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 the plaintiff was denied Social
Security benefits for lack of disability, that she is disabled, and that the
conclusions and findings of fact by the Commissioner when denying benefits
are not supported by substantial evidence and are contrary to federal law and
regulations. Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. At this early stage in the case, and based on the
information in the plaintiff’s complaint, the court concludes that there may be
2

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. 2.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 27th day of April, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge

3