Kaminski v. Colvin

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 8/17/2016 GRANTING 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
DAVID KAMINSKI,

Case No. 16-cv-1046-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. 3)
______________________________________________________________________________
On August 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed a complaint requesting that the
court review the denial of a portion of his Social Security Supplemental 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. 3. 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 employed or married
and has no dependents. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. He receives no monthly income and
has no financial assets other than $137 in a checking account. Id. at 2-3. He
does not own a vehicle or any property of value. Id. at 3. The affidavit indicates
that he has $55 in monthly expenses, which his mother pays. Id. at 2. The
1

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 or fails to
state a claim for which relief may be granted. 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).
The plaintiff’s application for Social Security benefits covered the period
from July 22, 2010 through June 10, 2013. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The ALJ issued a
partially favorable decision, finding that the plaintiff was disabled from April
18, 2012 through June 10, 2013. Id. The plaintiff now seeks review of the ALJ’s
decision only for the period of time that the ALJ found him not to be disabled.
Id. The plaintiff states that he was disabled during the time period relevant to
this case, and that the ALJ’s unfavorable conclusions and findings of fact were
not supported by substantial evidence and/or were contrary to law and
regulation. Id.
Based on the allegations in the complaint, the court finds that the
plaintiff has stated a claim that the Commissioner’s decision denying in part
2

the plaintiff’s application for benefits is not supported by substantial evidence
or is contrary to law and regulation. 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. 3) is GRANTED.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 17th day of August, 2016.

3