Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Gunning v. Commissioner of Social Security, 19-cv-375 JPG/CJP. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois Number: infdco20190409b72 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 08, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The test for determining if a
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The test for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir. 1983). When assessing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court should inquire into the merits of the plaintiff's claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).

The Court is satisfied from plaintiff's affidavit that the plaintiff is indigent. Furthermore, the Court does not find anything in the file to indicate that this action is frivolous or malicious. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. 2). The Court notes, however, that should it become apparent that the action is frivolous or malicious at any time in the future, it may dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

If the plaintiff wishes the United States Marshals Service to serve process in this case, the Court DIRECTS the plaintiff to provide to the United States Marshals Service the summons issued in this case, the appropriately completed USM-285 forms and sufficient copies of the complaint for service.

The Court further DIRECTS the United States Marshal, upon receipt of the aforementioned documents from the plaintiff and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3), to serve a copy of the summons, complaint and this order upon the defendant Commissioner of Social Security, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois and the Attorney General of the United States, Washington, D.C., in the manner specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i)(1) & (2), as directed by the plaintiff. Costs of service shall be borne by the United States.

This entire matter shall be REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), if all parties consent to such a referral.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer