Benaderet v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 9/11/2017 GRANTING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Joel Benaderet) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOEL BENADERET,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-CV-844-pp

COMMISSIONER OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2)
On June 16, 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial review
of a final administrative decision denying his application for supplemental
security income and disability insurance benefits. 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 information provided by the plaintiff, the court concludes
that he does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff is not
employed and has no source of monthly income. He owns no real property,
does not have a car or cash, and does not have checking or savings accounts.
He indicates that he is depending on his family for everything. The plaintiff has
1

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).
According to the plaintiff, the Appeals Council denied his request for
review on April 19, 2017. He asserts that he produced “unanimous and
compelling psychiatrist opinions” that he suffers from “chronic severe, and
debilitating anxiety disorders, OCD disorders, eating disorders and social
anxiety, which inhibit his ability to function on a daily basis and certainly
impedes any possibility to perform any kind of work, even on a limited basis at
this time.” Dkt. No. 1 at 4. The plaintiff asserts that the ALJ ignored this
evidence, ignored and discredited the doctor’s reports, and precluded the
plaintiff’s family from speaking on his behalf. 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.

2

The court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 11th day of September, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3