Robinson v. Berryhill

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 11/20/2017 GRANTING 3 plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (cc: all counsel) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
BEULAH ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-1530-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 November 6, 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint asking for judicial
review of a final administrative decision denying her claim for supplemental
security benefits for her granddaughter 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. 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 in the affidavit, the court concludes that the plaintiff
does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff indicates that she
supports her ten-year-old granddaughter, and has monthly income of $1,420
and expenses of $1,241. Dkt. No. 3 at 1-3. The plaintiff does not own a car or a

1

home, and she has no money in cash or in checking/savings accounts. Id. at 3.
The court concludes from that information that the plaintiff has demonstrated
that she 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).
The plaintiff alleges that the commissioner’s conclusions and findings are
not supported by substantial evidence, and/or are contrary to the social
security regulations and law. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. 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

2

defined by 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis (Dkt. No. 3).
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 20th day of November, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3