Mitchell v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper on 6/3/2024 GRANTING 2 plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying filing fee. (cc: all counsel and mailed to Wade Mitchell, PO Box 340605, Milwaukee, WI 53234)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

WADE MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-cv-671-pp
v.
MARTIN J. O'MALLEY,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYING FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2)

The plaintiff has 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. He also filed a motion for leave to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.
Federal law requires a person who files a complaint in federal court to
pay $405—a filing fee of $350 (28 U.S.C. §1914(a)) and a $55 administrative fee
(Judicial Conference of the United States District Court Miscellaneous Fee
Schedule Effective the December 1, 2023, #14). To allow the plaintiff to proceed
without prepaying the filing fee, the court first must decide whether the
plaintiff can pay the fee; 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 in the plaintiff’s affidavit, the court concludes that he
does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff’s affidavit indicates
1

that the plaintiff is married, neither he nor his spouse are employed, and they
have a 10-year-old son they are responsible for supporting. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. The
plaintiff states that in 2023, he and his spouse received $6,660 from the
Department of Workforce Development and $12,138.75 from Cutting Edge
Staffing—this comes to approximately $1,566 per month. Id. at 2. The plaintiff
lists expenses of $2,050 per month ($1,050 rent, $300 credit card payments,
$700 other household expenses). Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff does not own his
home or any other property of value; he owns a 2011 Nissan Quest, worth
approximately $2,157; he has no cash on hand or in a checking or savings
account. Id. at 3-4. The plaintiff states, “I have been unemployed since 202021(?) due to being physically unable to work. We depend on state Foodshare
and health insurance already due to this. My wife is struggling to pay rent and
utilities.” Id. at 4. The plaintiff has demonstrated that he cannot pay the $405
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 the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See
Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013).
2

The plaintiff filed his complaint using this court’s standard form. Dkt.
No. 1. The complaint indicates that the plaintiff is seeking review of an
unfavorable decision by the Commissioner denying benefits and that the
Commissioner’s unfavorable conclusions and findings of fact when denying
benefits are not supported by substantial evidence and/or are contrary to law
and regulation. Id. at 3. In addition, the plaintiff states, “I am 44 years old with
a history of seizures and head injuries. Memory loss and confusion happen
frequently. I have had 9 surgeries since 2018 which were all disasters.—
uns[u]ccessful. Loss of motor skills in hands frequently. Nerve damage in both
elbows. Alot of hardware in both feet and lost a toe. Physically and mentally
unable to gain and keep any type of employment.” Id. At this early stage in the
case, and based on the information in the plaintiff’s 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.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 3rd day of June, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge

3