Wright v. Astrue

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 11/12/09 denying 2 plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; plaintiff is ordered to pay the $350.00 filing fee for this action. (cc: plaintiff, all counsel) (nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
__________________________________________________ R U S S E L L W R IG H T , P l a i n t if f , v. M IC H A E L J. ASTRUE, C o m m is s io n e r of Social Security, D e fe n d a n t. __________________________________________________ C a s e No. 09-CV-1040

ORDER
O n November 4, 2009, plaintiff Russell W r ig h t ("W rig h t") filed a complaint s e e k in g judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security A d m in istra tio n denying his application for Supplemental Security Income disability b e n e fits . In connection with his complaint, W rig h t also filed a motion for leave to p ro c e e d in forma pauperis (IFP). The court finds that W r ig h t does not fulfill the re q u ire m e n ts to proceed IFP and will deny his motion. T h e federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure in d ig e n t litigants meaningful access to the federal courts. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U .S . 319, 327 (1989). To authorize a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the court m u s t first determine that the litigant is unable to pay the costs of commencing the a c tio n . 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Second, the court must determine that the action is n e ith e r frivolous nor malicious, does not fail to state a claim, and does not seek

m o n e y damages against a defendant immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). In making the latter determination, the court must give a pro se p la in tiff's allegations, "however inartfully pleaded," a liberal construction. Haines v. K e r n e r, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). T h e court finds that Wright fails to establish his inability to pay the costs of c o m m e n c in g this action. Wright submits an affidavit in which he declares under p e n a lty of perjury that he is currently unemployed and has one dependent child. H o w e v e r, he also asserts a monthly income of $2,774.00. This means that W rig h t h a s an annual income of more than $30,000. W rig h t asserts monthly expenses in the amount of $2,108.00, which includes a monthly child support payment. Even after deducting these expenses, W rig h t re ta in s $666.00 of disposable income each month. Therefore, W rig h t is capable of p a yin g the $350.00 filing fee and does not need his legal action subsidized by the ta x p a y e rs . A fte r evaluation of W rig h t's income and expenses, the court concludes that h e is ineligible to proceed IFP. Therefore, the court will deny W r ig h t's motion and o rd e r him to pay the required filing fee. A c c o r d in g ly ,

-2-

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma p a u p e ris (Docket #2) be and the same is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay th e $350.00 filing fee for this action. D a te d at Milwaukee, W is c o n s in , this 12th day of November, 2009. BY THE COURT:

J .P . Stadtmueller U .S . District Judge

-3-