Abramov v. Colvin

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 9/19/2016 GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
______________________________________________________________________________
BARUCH ABRAMOV,

Case No. 16-cv-1238-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 September 14, 2016, the plaintiff, who is represented by counsel,
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. 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 employed or married,
but he does have five minor children whom he supports. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. He
receives no monthly wages or salary, but does receive $608 per month of W2-T
support, $850 per month in Food Share benefits and $300 per month in child
1

support. Id. at 2. He does not own a home, but owns a 2004 Jeep Liberty and
has $100 in a checking account. Id. at 2-3. He does not own any other property
of value. Id. at 4. The affidavit indicates that the plaintiff has the following
monthly expenses, totaling over $2,200: $825 rental payment, $850 for
groceries, $160 to $200 for utility payments, $250-300 for cellular service, $15
for internet service, $83 for insurance, and $25 per month for legal and tax
services. Id. at 2-3. Based on these representations, the court concludes 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 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 seeks review of the ALJ’s decision denying his application for
Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance benefits for lack of
disability. Dkt. No. 1. He alleges that he is disabled, and contends that the
ALJ’s unfavorable conclusions and findings of fact were not supported by
2

substantial evidence and are contrary to law and regulation. Id. at 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 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. 2) is GRANTED.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 19th day of September, 2016.

3