UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOSEPHINE L. DEGROOT,

Plaintiff, Case No. 19-cv-1492-pp v.

COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 7)

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. On October 17, 2019, the court ordered the plaintiff to file an amended motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, dkt. no. 5, and the plaintiff has filed that amended motion, dkt. no. 7. 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.

(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’s affidavit indicates that she is not employed, not married, and she has no dependents she is responsible for supporting. Dkt. No. 7 at 1. The only income the plaintiff lists is $192 per month in “Food Assistance,” and her only expenses are $192 a month in other household expenses.

. The plaintiff does not own a home, a car, or any other property of value, and she has no cash on hand or in a

checking/savings account.

. The plaintiff states, “I am living with a friend for free right now, otherwise I would be homeless, living at a shelter. I get soap, shampoo, and razors from the food pantry and homeless service center. I am not on the lease for my friend’s apartment.”

. 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,

(1992) (quoting Nietzke v. Williams,

(1989); Casteel v. Pieschek,

(7th Cir. 1993)). A person may obtain district court review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security.

(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,

(7th Cir. 2013).

The plaintiff has filed this district’s form complaint, which states that she was denied benefits by the Commissioner, that she was disabled during the time period included in this case, and that the Commissioner’s unfavorable conclusions and findings of fact in denying benefits to the plaintiff are not supported by substantial evidence and/or are contrary to law and regulation. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. At this early stage in the case, and based on the information in the plaintiffs 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

(e)(2)(B)(i). The court GRANTS the plaintiffs amended motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 7. The court DENIES as moot the plaintiffs first motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3. Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 28th day of October, 2019. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge