Redig v. Berryhill
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
DALE REDIG,
CASE NO. 17-CV-0599-PP
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2)
On April 26, 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 indicated
that the plaintiff is not married, nor does he provide financial support for
anyone. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. He receives $735.00 of SSI a month, along with
$196.00 in food stamps. Id. at 2. In the last twelve months, the plaintiff also
1
received SSI back pay in the amount of $2,200.00. Id. He estimates that his
monthly expenses total $645.00. Id. at 3. The plaintiff currently has $2,800.00
in his savings account, and at retirement age will be eligible to receive $400.00
a month from his pension. Id. at 3-4. 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).
The plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred when, among other things, he
used disfavored boilerplate, did not provide an explanation of the weight given
to Plaintiff’s statements, failed to comply with SSR 83-20 and inappropriately
made medical findings. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The plaintiff also alleges that the ALJ
abused his discretion, that his decision was not supported by substantial
evidence and that it contained harmful errors of law. Id. at 3. 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
2
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?