Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Smith v. Astrue
July 3, 2012
Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Kendall than Assigned Judge
Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis  is granted.
O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
Plaintiff Ricky Smith moves to proceed in forma pauperis without the full prepayment of filing fees. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may authorize Smith to proceed in forma pauperisif he is unable to pay the mandated court fees. Smith need not be penniless to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915(a)(1). See Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980). Instead, he is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis if payment of the filing fee will prevent him from providing for life's necessities. See id. According to his financial affidavit, Smith is currently unemployed but was employed from May 14, 2012 to May 16, 2012, earning $99.82. Smith does not own any real estate or any additional items of personal property worth over $1,000, nor does he have more than $200 in cash or in a checking or savings account. Smith has received $200.00 in food stamps over the past twelve months. Smith lives at a Heartland Alliance apartment building, where he is provided with shelter and food. Based on these facts, Smith's financial affidavit sets forth his inability to pay the mandated court fees.
Also, looking to whether the case states a claim, as this court must, the complaint challenges a ruling regarding the denial of social security benefits. An individual may challenge a review by the Appeals Council of the U.S. Social Security Administration by bringing a civil action in a federal district court with sixty days of the adverse determination. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); accord Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106‐107 (2000). In challenging the review, a lawsuit will be considered frivolous if the petitioner "can make no rational argument in law or fact to support [his] claims for relief." Greathouse v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 00 C 7661, 2000 WL 1847613 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 14, 2000) (citing Jones v. Morris, 777 F.2d 1277, 1279 (7th Cir. 1985)). In the present case the Appeals Council rendered its decision on April 19, 2012, and Smith timely commenced this action on June 13, 2012. Smith contends that the finding that he is not disabled is not in accordance with the purpose or intent of the Social Security Act, nor is it it supported by substantial evidence. Smith has therefore adequately stated a cause of action to give rise to plausible entitlement to relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For