Brooks v. Colvin

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 12/6/2016 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
______________________________________________________________________________
TRINA C. BROOKS,

Case No. 16-cv-1514-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)
______________________________________________________________________________
The plaintiff has filed a complaint requesting that the court review the
Commissioner’s denial of her Social Security Disability Insurance claims. Dkt.
No. 1. Along with the complaint, the plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of her
request that the court allow her 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 she last worked in June 2008.
She receives $608 per month in W-2 assistance and $306 in food share
benefits, for a total monthly income of $914. Id. at 4. She is not married, but
she supports one minor son, D. L. Id. at 2. The plaintiff indicates that she has
monthly expenses totaling $791, including $53 in rent and $60 for
1

transportation expenses. Id. at 4. She also provides financial assistance to her
son, but does not specify the monthly amount (she indicated that she
contributes “whatever required”). Id. at 2. The affidavit also states that the
plaintiff’s only other assets are $100 in a checking account and an older model
car that she values at $500. Id. The court concludes from that information that
the plaintiff has demonstrated that she cannot pay 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 her complaint, the plaintiff asserts that (1) the ALJ erred in rendering
a decision that was not supported by substantial evidence and contained errors
of law, and (2) the Appeals Council erred in declining review of an adverse
decision that was not supported by substantial evidence and contained errors
of law. 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).
2

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 6th day of December, 2016.

3