Triggs v. Colvin

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 8/1/2016 GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (cc: all counsel) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
KENNY TRIGGS,

Case No. 16-cv-828-pp
Plaintiff,

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 2)
______________________________________________________________________________
On June 28, 2016, the plaintiff filed a complaint requesting that the
court review the denial of his Social Security Supplemental Security Income
and Disability Insurance claims. Dkt. No. 1. Along with the complaint, the
plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of his motion that the court allow him to
proceed with the case without paying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. 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).
In his affidavit, the plaintiff indicates that he is not married and has no
dependents. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. He receives no monthly income and has no
financial assets. Id. at 2-3. He does not own a vehicle or any property of value.
Id. at 3. The affidavit indicates that he has no monthly expenses. Id. at 2. The

1

court concludes from this information that the plaintiff has demonstrated that
he cannot pay the full amount of the $350 filing fee and $50 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 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 his complaint, the plaintiff asserts that the ALJ abused his discretion
and that his decision was not supported by substantial evidence. In particular,
the plaintiff alleges that the ALJ (1) did not properly account for the plaintiff’s
limitations in activities of daily living in his residual functional capacity (RFC)
determination; (2) did not properly account for the moderate limitations noted
by state agency psychologists in determining the limiting effects of the
plaintiff’s symptoms or in determining the plaintiff’s RFC; (3) failed to properly
explain the weight he gave to the plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinions; (4)
failed to properly evaluate substantial evidence supporting the plaintiff’s
application for disability benefits; and (5) erred in concluding that the plaintiff
could perform work as a janitor.

2

Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court finds that the
plaintiff has stated a claim that the Commissioner’s decision denying the
plaintiff’s application for benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. 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, as defined by 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court ORDERS that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 1st day of August, 2016.

3