Ortiz v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/28/2017 GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Wilma I. Ortiz) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILMA I. ORTIZ,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-CV-878-JPS

v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

ORDER

Defendant.
Wilma I. Ortiz filed a complaint in this matter and a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket #1 and #2). The Court may
grant the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis if it determines
that: (1) the plaintiff is truly indigent and unable to pay the costs of
commencing this action; and (2) the plaintiff’s action is neither frivolous
nor malicious. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a), (e)(2).
As to the first requirement, the privilege to proceed without
payment of costs and fees “is reserved to the many truly impoverished
litigants who…would remain without legal remedy if such privilege were
not afforded to them.” Brewster v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649, 651
(7th Cir. 1972). The plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
demonstrates that she is indigent. (Docket #2). More precisely, the plaintiff
attests in her motion that she is unemployed and unmarried and has a
monthly income of $1,251. Id. at 1-2. Her monthly expenses include $625
for rent, $300 for a car payment, and $500 for other monthly expenses, for
a total of $1,425 in monthly expenses. Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff owns a
vehicle worth $2,000, but has no savings or investments. Id. at 3-4. She has

one dependent son, and receives $150 per month for child support. Id. at 1,
4. The Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is indigent and cannot afford the
filing fee.
Further, the Court cannot say that the plaintiff’s action is frivolous
or malicious. As a pro se litigant, her filings are viewed generously.
Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001). Using that lens, the
Court construes plaintiff’s short statement in the complaint form as an
attack on the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision to deny
benefits in her case, namely that the ALJ did not consider her symptoms
and impairments. (Docket #1 at 3). If that contention is true, then the
Court may be required to vacate the decision. Thus, the plaintiff’s action is
neither frivolous nor malicious.
For those reasons, the Court will grant the plaintiff’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Docket #2) be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 28th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2