UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DUMAR ONEIL GREER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-195-pp v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

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. 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 he does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff indicates that he is not employed, he is not married, and he has no dependents he is responsible for supporting. Dkt. No. 2 at 1. The plaintiff lists no income, no expenses, no property and no cash on hand or in a checking or savings account.

. He states, “At this time Mr. Greer can not obtain substantial employment due to his disability. Mr. Greer gets help financially from other family members and residence from family. Mr. Greer would like to help his fiancé with bills but at this time can not so his fiancé pays the bills and family helps.”

. The plaintiff has demonstrated that he 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 filed using this court’s form complaint. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint indicates that the plaintiff believes 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 complaint states “Mr. Greer is disabled and has been seeing a

physical therapist and primary care doctor. Mr. Greer is unable to function on regular basis to obtain substantial 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

(e)(2)(B)(i). The court GRANTS the plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 13th day of February, 2023. BY THE COURT:

ON. PAMELA PEPPER Chief United States District Judge