Tompkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 11/22/2017 GRANTING 2 plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Christian Tompkins) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHRISTIAN G. TOMPKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-1429-pp

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF THE FILNG FEE (DKT. NO. 2)
On October 18, 2017, the pro se plaintiff filed a complaint asking the
court to review the Commissioner’s 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 first must 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 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Based on the facts in the plaintiff’s affidavit, the court concludes that the
plaintiff does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff’s affidavit
states that he is unable to work, that he has no income, that he does not own a
car or a home, that he has no money in cash or in a checking/savings account,
1

that he has no other valuable property, and that his mother pays for his
personal items. Dkt. No. 2. The court concludes from that information that the
plaintiff has demonstrated that he cannot pay the $350 filing fee and the $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 Nietzke 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 substantial evidence supports the decision. See Roddy v.
Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013).
The plaintiff’s pro se complaint indicates that he’s asking the court to
review an unfavorable decision, that he had been having seizures, and that he
recently had brain surgery. Dkt. No. 1. At this early stage in the case, the court
concludes that there may be a basis in law or in fact for the plaintiff’s appeal of
the Commissioner’s decision, and that appeal may have merit, as defined by 28

2

U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal without
prepaying the filing fee. (Dkt. No.2).
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 22nd day of November, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3