Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
5
ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 5/8/2017 GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel) (pwm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BRETT MORRISON,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 17-CV-0501-PP
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2)
On April 6, 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial review of
a final administrative decision denying his claim for supplemental security
income and disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Dkt.
No. 1. The plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment
of 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).
Based on the facts presented in the affidavit, the court concludes that the
plaintiff does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The affidavit indicates
that the plaintiff is not married, nor does he provide financial support for
anyone. Dkt. No. 2 at 2. He receives $194 in food stamps, and earns $400 from
1
his job on a monthly basis. Id. The plaintiff has a 401(k) account with a
balance of $881, and he has no other source of income or assets. Id. at 3. The
plaintiff’s expenses are $700 for rent and $20 for personal items, totaling $720
each month. Id. at 4-5. The court concludes from that information that the
plaintiff has demonstrated that he 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 his complaint, the plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred when he failed to
respond to post-hearing objections to certain aspects of the vocational
testimony, as required by unambiguous agency policy. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The
plaintiff also contends that the denial of his disability claim is not supported by
substantial evidence under the standards in 42 U.S.C. §405(g), all other
applicable laws and regulations, the weight of the evidence, his credibility, the
medical opinions of his doctors, and any and all other applicable evidentiary
issues, both in law and in fact. Id. At this early stage in the case, the court
2
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 GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. Dkt. No. 2.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 8th day of May, 2017.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?