Franklin v. Colvin

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 9/8/2014 GRANTING 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JAMES FRANKLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-1085

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff-Claimant James Franklin (“Franklin”) seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on the appeal from the denial of his applications
for social security disability benefits. (ECF No. 3.) 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, Franklin
avers that he is not married. He is not employed, owns no valuable assets,
and has no money in any type of financial account.

He lives with his

girlfriend who pays for the rent and groceries. Based on the information

provided, the Court concludes Franklin has satisfied the requirements of
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and is unable to pay the $350 filing fee for this action.
Franklin must next demonstrate that this 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).
The Complaint states that the Commissioner’s decision regarding
the denial of the applications for social security disability benefits is not
supported by substantial evidence, and/or is contrary to law.

(See

Compl. ¶ 7.) (ECF No. 1.) Alternatively, to the extent that new evidence
has been submitted to the Appeals Council or this Court, Franklin raises
several reasons for requesting a remand of the matter. (Id. at ¶ 8.) At this
preliminary stage of the proceedings, the Court concludes that there may
be a basis in law or in fact for Franklin’s appeal of the Commissioner’s
-2-

decision, and the appeal may have merit as defined by 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Therefore, the Court grants Franklin’s request to proceed
in forma pauperis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Franklin’s petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No.
3) is GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 8th day of September, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

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

-3-