Abramowski v. Berryhill

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 3/7/2018 GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (cc: all counsel) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SUSAN J. ABRAMOWSKI,

v.

Plaintiff,

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

Case No. 18-CV-342-JPS

ORDER

Defendant.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter and a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket #1, #2). The Court may grant Plaintiff’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis if it determines that: (1) Plaintiff is truly
indigent and unable to pay the costs of commencing this action; and (2)
Plaintiff’s action states a viable claim for relief and is neither frivolous nor
malicious. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a), (e)(2)(B).
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). In her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff
made statements about her income, expenses, and assets under oath.
(Docket #2). She avers that she is unmarried and has no dependents. Id. at
1. She is unemployed and has received only $1,265 in the last twelve months
in the form of spousal support and food share. Id. at 2. Her monthly
expenses total $1,250. Id. at 2–3. She owns a 2014 Ford Escort, with an
approximate value of $4,000. Id. at 3. She also has $100 in a checking

account. Id. In light of these facts, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff is
indigent and cannot afford the filing fee.
Plaintiff satisfies the second requirement of Section 1915 as well, as
her action is not wholly without merit, nor is it frivolous or malicious.
Plaintiff submitted a complaint which includes allegations that the
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in reaching a decision. (Docket #1
at 1–3). If those contentions are true, then the Court will be obliged to vacate
the ALJ’s decision. Thus, Plaintiff’s action does not warrant dismissal under
Section 1915(e)(2)(B).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket #2) be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 7th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 2 of 2