Schramm v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: September 11, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01397
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JACQUELINE SCHRAMM,

Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-1397-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 married, and she has no dependents she is responsible for supporting. Dkt. No. 3 at 1. The only income listed by the plaintiff is $3,000 per month earned by her spouse. Id. at 2. The plaintiff states monthly expenses of $2,560 ($800 mortgage, $260 car payments, $300 credit card payments, $1,200 other household expenses). Id. at 2-3. The plaintiff owns a 2012 Chevy Impala worth approximately $8,000; she owns her home worth $120,00 with approximately $25,000 in equity; she owns no other property of value; and she has no cash on hand or in a checking or savings account. Id. at 2-3. While it

seems that the plaintiff has approximately $440 per month after expenses, the court finds 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 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 plaintiff’s complaint indicates that she was denied Social Security benefits for lack of disability, that she is disabled, and that the conclusions and findings of fact by the Commissioner of Social Security 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 11th day of September, 2020. BY THE COURT: Z PAMELA PEPPER Chief United States District Judge