UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

KATHLEEN WRAALSTAD,

Plaintiff, Case No. 25-cv-1754-pp v.

FRANK J. BISIGNANO,

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 no wages or salary; under source of income she lists $300 and says “my parents pay for my needs.”

. The plaintiff’s stated monthly household expenses are $292 for

food (but next to that amount she wrote “0 (state),” so perhaps she receives food stamps to cover that cost); she lists $40 for a phone and says “parents pay;” and she lists $50 for personal items and says “parents buy.”

. The plaintiff states that she does not own a car or her home or any other property of value and that she has $50 cash on hand or in a checking or savings account.”

. The plaintiff states that she currently lives with her parents.

. 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,

, 1056 (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 Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits and that the Commissioner’s decision finding her not disabled is not in accordance with the purpose and intent of the Social Security Act and is contrary to the evidence because the Administrative Law Judge’s decision is 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 plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3. Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 12th day of November, 2025. BY THE COURT:

Chief United States District Judge