Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Kendall Sitting Judge if Otherthan Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 5694 DATE 7/25/2012

CASE

TITLE

Hale vs. Astrue

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Hale’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted because her financial affidavit establishes the

necessary level of impoverishment setting forth her inability to pay the mandated court filing fees

and because her cause of action for judicial review of a final determination of the Social Security

Administration is properly before the Court.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Marletha J. Hale moves to proceed in forma pauperis without the full prepayment of filing fees.

For the reasons stated below, Hale’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted.

Hale brings this cause of action against Michael J. Astrue, as Commissioner of Social Security, for the

denial of disability benefits andsupplemental security income.  Hale’s Complaintis timely filed, as she

sought and obtained from the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration an extension of

time in which to file a civil action through August 15, 2012.  Hale requests judicial review of the

Commissioner’s adverse decision denying her disability benefits and supplemental security income.

Hale claims that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying her benefits is not supported by

substantial evidence and that it contains errors of law.  She also contends that the Appeals Council

erred in declining review of the adverse decisions.  Hale asks this Court to reverse and set aside the

finaldecisionofthe Commissioner of Social Security, orin the alternative to vacate the Commissioner’s

final decision and remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the

Commissioner’s regulations and Circuit law.  Hale also prays for an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant

to the Equal Justice Act in the event that she prevails.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may authorize Hale to proceed in forma pauperis if she is

unable to pay the mandated court fees.  Hale 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, she is eligible to proceed in

12C5694 Hale vs. Astrue Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

forma pauperis if payment of the filing fee will prevent her from providing for life’s necessities.  See Id.

According to her financial affidavit, Hale is currently unemployed.  In the last twelve months, Hale

has received $698.00 in disability benefits and child support, $502.00 in public aid consisting of food

stamps and a medical card, and $1,092.00 in housing assistance.  Hale does not have more than $200.00

in a checking or savings account.  Hale owns no stocks, bonds, securities or otherfinancialinstruments.

Hale does not own any real estate.    Hale owns a 2001 Cadillac with a current value of roughly

$5,000.00, in which she has roughly $4,000.00 in equity and on which she makes monthly loan

payments in the amount of $129.00.  Hale has a daughter and a son, both of whom rely on her for full

support.  Based on these facts, Hale’s financial affidavit sets forth a level of impoverishment marking

her inability to pay the mandated court fees.

Also, looking to whether the case states a claim, as this Court must pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)‐(iii), the Complaint challenges a ruling regarding the denial of social security benefits

and supplemental security income.  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 receiving notice of the adverse determination. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Any individual. . . may

obtain a review of such decision by a civil action commended within sixty days afterthe mailing to him

of notice of such decision. . .”); accord Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 106‐107 (2000).  Alternatively, a

putative plaintiff challenging a determination by the Appeals Council of the Social Security

Administration can ask the Council for an extension of time in which to file a civil action challenging

the action of the Commissioner.  See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (An individual may obtain judicial review

within sixty days of notice by the Appeals Council of an adverse determination “or within such further

time as the Commissioner of Social Security may allow.”); accord Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S.

467, 480 (1986).  In challenging the review, a lawsuit will be considered frivolous if the petitioner “can

make no rational argument in law or fact to support [her] 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 18, 2012,

and Hale timely commenced this action on July 19, 2012 by seeking and obtaining from the Appeals

Council an extension of time in which to file a civil action by August 15, 2012. Hale contends that the

finding that she is not entitled to certain benefits is not supported by substantial evidence and is based

on erroneous conclusions of law.  Hale has therefore adequately stated a cause of action to give rise

to plausible entitlement to relief.  See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

For the reasons stated above, Hale’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted because her

financial affidavit establishes the necessary level of impoverishment setting forth her inability to pay

the mandated court filing fees and because her cause of action for judicial review of a final

determination of the Social Security Administration is properly before the Court.

12C5694 Hale vs. Astrue Page 2 of 2