Sharp v. Colvin

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 6/20/2014 GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
EMMANUAL SHARP,
Plaintiff-Claimant,
v.

Case No. 14-C-673

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff-Claimant Emmanuel Sharp (“Sharp”) seeks leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on his appeal from the denial of his social security supplemental security
income (“SSI”) claim. (ECF No. 2.) In order to authorize a litigant to proceed in forma
pauperis, the Court must make two determinations: First, whether the litigant is unable
to pay the costs of commencing this action; and, second, whether the action is frivolous
or malicious. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) and (e)(2)(B)(i).
By his petition and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis, Sharp avers that he is
unemployed and single. He receives $153 in public assistance. He has no dependents.
He has no valuable assets and no money. He has no monthly expenses. Sharp has
satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and is unable to pay the $350 filing fee
for this action.
Sharp must next demonstrate that his action has merit as required by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An action 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).
Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), a plaintiff may obtain review of the Social Security
Commissioner’s decision. The standard of review that the Court is to apply in reviewing
the Commissioner’s decision is whether the decision is supported by “substantial
evidence.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Jens v. Barnhart, 347 F.3d 209, 212 (7th Cir. 2003).
Sharp’s Complaint states a claim that the Commissioner’s decision regarding the
denial of his application for SSI is not supported by substantial evidence, or is contrary to
law. (See Compl. ¶¶ 6-10.) At this preliminary stage of the proceedings, the Court
concludes that there may be a basis in law or in fact for Sharp’s appeal of the
Commissioner’s decision and the appeal may have merit, as defined by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Therefore, the Court grants Sharp’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
Sharp’s petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is
GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 20th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-2-