Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 5/22/2017 GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel; by US Mail to plaintiff) (pwm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
PRENTICE HARRELL DAVIS,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17-CV-0641-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 May 4, 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial review of
a final administrative decision denying his claim for 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 plaintiff filed an
affidavit indicating that he is not married, and that he does not provide
financial support for anyone. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. He does not receive income, or
incur any expenses. Id. at 2. The plaintiff does not hold a checking or savings

1

account and does not own any property. 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).
In his complaint, the plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred when he sought input
from a random doctor who did not know the plaintiff, and was not aware of the
seriousness of his disability, concerning both his inability to work and the
inability to carry out normal physical activities. Dkt. No. 1 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
may have merit, as defined by 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

2

The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis (Dkt. No. 2).
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 22nd day of May, 2017.

3