Collins v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 8/17/2016 GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to Plaintiff) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
BRYAN DERRELL COLLINS,

Case No. 16-CV-1044-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 August 8, 2016, the plaintiff (representing himself) filed a complaint
requesting that the court review the denial of his Social Security 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 the affidavit, the plaintiff indicates that he is not employed, not
married, has no dependents, and receives a total of $194 of income each month
through FoodShare benefits. Dkt. No. 2 at 1-2. He states that his household
expenses total $194 per month. Id. at 2. He does not own a car or a home, and

1

he has no other assets. 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 standard pro se form complaint), the plaintiff
questions the denial of his application for disability insurance. Dkt. No. 1 at 2.
The specific language of the standard form complaint states: “I, or the person
on whose behalf I am filing this case, was disabled during the time period
included in this case. I believe the Commissioner’s unfavorable conclusions
and findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence; and/or are
contrary to law and regulation.” Id. at 3. The plaintiff attached to his complaint
the adverse decision issued by an Administrative Law Judge of the Social
Security Administration. The Social Security Appeals Council found no reason
to review the ALJ’s decision, which left the ALJ’s adverse decision the final
decision of the Commissioner.

2

Based on the allegations of the complaint (together with the exhibits to
the complaint), the court cannot find at this point that the plaintiff’s claims are
frivolous or without merit. 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 proceed in
forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 17th day of August, 2016.

3