UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

LESLIE PEARL WOJCZYNSKI,

Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-1784-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.

(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 has no dependents she is responsible for supporting. Dkt. No. 3 at 1. The only source of income listed by the plaintiff is $674 per month from “Social Security Retirement.”

. The plaintiff’s listed monthly expenses total $532 ($192 rent, $80 credit card payments, $260 other household expenses.)

. The plaintiff does not own a car or her home, or any other property of value; she has $164 in cash on hand or in a checking or savings account.

. The plaintiff has demonstrated that she cannot pay the $350 filing fee and $52 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’s complaint indicates that she was denied benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security, that she was disabled during the time period included in this case, and that the Commissioner’s unfavorable conclusions and findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence and/or are contrary to law and regulation. Dkt. No. 1 at 2. 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

(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 3rd day of December, 2020. BY THE COURT: k PAMELA PEPPER Chief United States District Judge