UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ANGELA LOPEZ-PEREZ,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-191-pp v.

MICHELLE KING,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING 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. Federal law requires a person who files a complaint in federal court to pay $405—a filing fee of $350 (

(a)) and a $55 administrative fee (Judicial Conference of the United States District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule Effective the December 1, 2023, #14). To allow the plaintiff to proceed without prepaying 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 request 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 plaintiff lists in come of $592 per month ($200 from her mother, $100 from Lutheran Social Services, $292 from food share stamps).

. The plaintiff lists as other household

expenses the $292 she receives from food share, and she says that Section 8 pays her rent in full (although she does not state how much the rent is).

The plaintiff says she owns a 2001 Toyota Camry; under Approximate Current Value, she wrote “no pay.”

. The plaintiff does not own her home or any other property of value and she has no cash on hand or in a savings or checking account.

. The plaintiff has demonstrated that she cannot pay the $405 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 for lack of disability, and that the Commissioner’s decision is “not in accordance with the purpose and intent of the Social Security Act,” that the decision is contrary to the evidence, not supported by substantial evidence and is contrary to law. Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. 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 plaintiffs 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 7th day of February, 2025. BY THE COURT:

Chief United States District Judge