Bond v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: October 6, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01536
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DEON BOND,

Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-1536-pp v.

ANDREW M. SAUL,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 3)

The plaintiff has filed a complaint seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 1. She also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3. To allow the plaintiff to proceed without paying 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 she does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff indicates that she is not employed, she is not married, and she is responsible for supporting her 6- year-old grandson. Dkt. No. 3 at 1. The plaintiff lists monthly income of $783 from SSI and $199 from FoodShare. Id. at 2. The plaintiff’s monthly expenses total $1,359 ($784 rent, $350 other household expenses (food), $85 utilities, $75 laundry/household items, $65 cell phone). Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff does not own a car or her home or any other property of value, and she has no cash on hand or in a checking or savings account. Id. at 3-4. Given that the amount of her monthly expenses exceeds her stated monthly income by $377, the court is

somewhat puzzled by how the plaintiff and her grandson are living. However, the court is satisfied that the plaintiff has demonstrated 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 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). The complaint indicates that the Commissioner of Social Security denied the plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income for lack of disability, that the plaintiff is disabled, and that the conclusions and findings

of fact by the Commissioner when denying benefits are not supported by substantial evidence and are contrary to law and regulation. Dkt. No. 1 at 1. 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 plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3. Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 6th day of October, 2020. BY THE COURT:

N. PAMELA PEPPER Chief United States District Judge