ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 3)

PAMELA PEPPER, District Judge.

On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff 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. The plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3.

In order to allow the plaintiff to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court must first decide whether the plaintiff has the ability to pay the filing fee, and if not, it must determine whether the lawsuit is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Based on the facts presented in the plaintiff's affidavit, the court concludes that she does not have the ability to pay the filing fee. The plaintiff indicates that she is married with two minor children, dkt. no. 3 at 1; and the plaintiff and her husband have no income except FoodShare of $450 per month, id. at 2. The plaintiff states that she makes monthly mortgage payments, but does not list the amount of the payment. Id. As far as other expenses are concerned, the plaintiff says that her daughter pays all the bills; the plaintiff contributes her FoodShare of $450 per month to pay for food. Id. While the plaintiff indicates that her home is worth $60,000, she does not list the amount of equity in the home; and she lists a balance of $100 in a checking/savings account. Id. at 3. The court concludes from that information that the plaintiff has demonstrated that she cannot pay the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative 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, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Casteel v. Pieschek, 3 Fed. 1050, 1056 (7th Cir. 1993)). A person may obtain district court review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. 42 U.S.C. §405(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, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013).

The plaintiff's complaint states that she is disabled, that she was denied SSI benefits, and that the Commissioner's unfavorable conclusions and findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence and/or are contrary to law and regulation. Dkt. No. 1 at 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 plaintiff's appeal of the Commissioner's decision, and that the appeal may have merit, as defined by 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court GRANTS the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without paying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 3.