Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_11-cv-00061/USCOURTS-alsd-1_11-cv-00061-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

PATRICK NEAL ANDERSON, * 

 * 

 Plaintiff, * 

 * 

vs. * CIVIL ACTION 11-00061-WS-B 

 * 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, * 

Commissioner of * 

Social Security, * 

 * 

 Defendant. * 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 This action, which is before the Court on Plaintiff Patrick 

Neal Anderson’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

on Appeal (Doc. 28), was referred to the undersigned for report 

and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Based upon a 

careful review of Plaintiff’s Motion, and the case file, the 

undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good 

faith, and therefore recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion be 

denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, paid the filing fee 

when he initiated this action on September 11, 2009 (Doc. 1). In 

this action, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision 

of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for 

disability income benefits and supplemental security income 

under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 

401 et seq., and 1381 et seq. The Commissioner filed a motion 

Case 1:11-cv-00061-WS-B Document 31 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 5
2 

requesting a remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g) because the claim file for Plaintiff’s adverse 2004 

administrative decision could not be located. (Doc. 22). Thus, 

the Commissioner sought to have this case remanded to the 

Appeals Council so that the claim file could be located or 

reconstructed regarding the adverse 2004 Administrative Law 

Judge decision. The undersigned found that the Commissioner’s 

pre-answer concession that this case should be remanded to allow 

the Appeals Council to locate or reconstruct the claim file 

regarding the Administrative Law Judge’s June 25, 2004 decision 

constituted good cause to remand this case to the Commissioner 

for further proceedings. See, e.g., Gamble v. Apfel, 2001 WL 

102344 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 5, 2001); Patt v. Apfel, 1999 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 14102, *2-3 (S.D. Ala. Jun. 22, 1999). Accordingly, the 

undersigned recommended that this case be remanded to the 

Appeals Council. (Doc. 23). Plaintiff filed an Objection to the 

recommendation; however, he did not provide any basis for his 

objection. (Doc. 24) Upon review by the district court, 

Plaintiff’s Objections was overruled, the recommendation was 

adopted, and judgment was entered remanding this case to the 

Appeals Council. (Docs. 25, 26). 

Case 1:11-cv-00061-WS-B Document 31 Filed 11/04/11 Page 2 of 5
3 

Subsequent thereto, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal(Doc. 

27)1, and a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees. (Doc. 

28). As a threshold matter, the undersigned notes that Plaintiff 

has not demonstrated that he is unable to pay the requisite 

filing fee. He paid the $350.00 filing fee when he initiated 

this action, and in his motion, he avers that he does not have 

any financial obligations, and that he receives an unspecified 

amount monthly in veterans’ benefits2. Thus, Plaintiff has not 

established that he is unable to pay the appellate filing fee. 

 Additionally, he cannot establish that this appeal is taken 

in good faith. In Forma Pauperis proceedings are governed by 28 

U.S.C. § 1915. In Forma Pauperis status should be granted where 

the appellant is indigent unless “the trial court certifies in 

writing that [the appeal] is not taken in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1),(3). A party demonstrates good faith by seeking 

appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous when 

 1

 Fed.R.App.P.24(a)(1) provides: 

 Except as stated in Rule 24(a)(3), a party to a 

district-court action who desires to appeal in forma pauperis 

must file a motion in the district court. The party must attach 

an affidavit that (A) shows in the detail prescribed by the Form 

4 of the Appendix of Forms that the party’s inability to pay or 

to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement 

to redress; and (C) states the issues that the party intends to 

present on appeal. 

2

 In his motion, Plaintiff indicates that he lives with his 

parents and that his veterans’ benefits are being increased from 

80% to 100%. 

Case 1:11-cv-00061-WS-B Document 31 Filed 11/04/11 Page 3 of 5
4 

examined under an objective standard. See Coppedge v. United 

States, 369 U.S. 438, 445, 82 S.Ct. 917, 921, 8 L.Ed. 2d 21 

(1962). An issue is frivolous when it appears that “the legal 

theories are indisputably meritless.” Ghee v. Retailers Nat’l 

Bank, 271 Fed. Appx. 858, 860 (llth Cir. 2008)(citing Carroll v. 

Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (llth Cir. 1993)). In other words, an 

in forma pauperis action is frivolous, and thus not brought in 

good faith, if it is “without arguable merit either in law or 

fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (llth Cir. 2001). 

When a claim is arguable, but ultimately will be unsuccessful, 

it should be allowed to proceed. Ghee, 271 Fed. Appx. at 859 

(citing Cofield v. Alabama Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F. 2d 512, 515 

(llth Cir. 1991)). 

 In his Objection to the District Court, and his Notice of 

Appeal, Plaintiff merely alleges that he disagrees with the 

decision to remand this case to the Appeals Council so that the 

record can be reconstructed or a new hearing conducted. 

Plaintiff does not provide any arguable basis, legal or factual, 

for his contention that this case should not have been remanded 

to the Appeals Council. Because the record is devoid of anything 

which suggests that Plaintiff is seeking to raise on appeal an 

issue that is arguable, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff’s 

appeal is not taken in good faith. Accordingly, the undersigned 

recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied, and that the 

Case 1:11-cv-00061-WS-B Document 31 Filed 11/04/11 Page 4 of 5
5 

District Court certify that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in 

good faith. 

 DONE this 4th day of November, 2011. 

 /s/SONJA F. BIVINS_______ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-00061-WS-B Document 31 Filed 11/04/11 Page 5 of 5