Bubner v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 12/13/2017 GRANTING 2 plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Roger Bubner) (cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ROGER A. BUBNER, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-1621-pp

COMMISSIONER OF THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2)
On November 21, 2017, the plaintiff—who is representing himself—filed
a complaint seeking judicial review of a 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.
Before allowing 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, it must determine whether the lawsuit is frivolous. 28 U.S.C.
§§1915(a) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Based on the facts presented in the plaintiff’s affidavit, the court
concludes that he does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff
indicates that he has no income and no expenses. Dkt. No. 2 at 2-3. He states
that he owns a 1992 Ford truck that is inoperable and not registered, and he
1

has no money in case or checking/savings accounts. Id. at 3. The plaintiff
further states that he “live[s] with family/friends.” Id. at 4. The court concludes
from that information that the plaintiff has 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 Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325 (1989); Casteel v. Pieschek, 3 Fed. 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).
In his complaint, the plaintiff indicates that he has little strength in his
left arm, little use of his right hand and has had a stroke. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. Also
according to the plaintiff, his lawyer did not review the plaintiff’s medical disk
before his hearing and never spoke at the hearing to “express [the plaintiff’s]
injuries.” Id. At this early stage in the case, and based on the information in
the plaintiff’s pro se complaint, 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 the appeal may have merit, as defined by 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed without
prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No.2.
2

Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 13th day of December, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge

3