Trower v. Berryhill

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 10/30/2017 GRANTING 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANN TROWER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-1330-pp

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 3)

On September 28, 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking judicial
review of a partially favorable decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration under 42 U.S.C. §405(g). Dkt. No. 1. The plaintiff also
filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt. No.
3.
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’s monthly
expenses ($930) exceed her monthly wages ($925), and she identifies no assets

1

other than a car and approximately $2,037 she received from MetLife. Based
on the information provided, the court concludes that the plaintiff 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, 489 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 alleges that she was disabled during the period from
February 4, 2010 through February 21, 2014, and that she continues to be
disabled. She believes the Commissioner’s unfavorable conclusions and
findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence and/or are contrary
to law and regulation. 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 proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 30th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3