Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Millsapp v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

January 29, 2019

ANNIE MAE MILLSAPP, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2), ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT NO LATER THAN END OF DAY FEBRUARY 22, 2019 AND DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DKT. NO. 5)

          HON PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The plaintiff has filed a complaint, dkt. no. 1, a motion for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, dkt. no. 2 and a motion asking the court to appoint a lawyer to represent her, dkt. no. 5.

         Application to Proceed Without Prepaying the Filing Fee

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

         The plaintiff says that she is not employed; she reports that she and her husband each get $725/month from SSI payments. Dkt. No. 2 at 1-2. The plaintiff says that she is responsible for supporting her brother “Milton Lee Robinson.” Id. at 1. The plaintiff does not report paying rent or a mortgage, but she mentions something at the end of the application about some houses that were purchased through her “allotment” from “heirship rights” of her forefathers, who were veterans, and says that the allotment and money were “stolen” by “federal employees.” Id. at 4. The plaintiff reports that she has expenses of $840 a month for food, gas, copies and a phone bill. Id. at 2-3.

         While the court does not understand how the plaintiff has no housing expenses, and while she does not explain how much money she pays each month to support her brother, the court concludes that at this stage, the plaintiff does not have the money to pay the $350 filing fee and the $50 administrative fee.

         Allegations in the Complaint

         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)).

         The law allows someone who has applied for Social Security benefits to ask the district court to review 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 if 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 court cannot allow the plaintiff to proceed on the complaint she has filed. It appears that the plaintiff has taken two forms, and used part of each to create her complaint. The first two page of the complaint are written on a form provided by the Eastern District of Wisconsin's Clerk's Office titled “Complaint for Review of a Final Decision By The Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. On the second page of that form (and of the complaint), the plaintiff checked both the box for “Disability Insurance (SSDI or Widow/Widower), ” and the box for “Other.” Id. at 2. Next to the box for “Other, ” the plaintiff wrote, “survivals benefits/the Federal employees is using my heirship rights and benefits through my social security, ” and she included a four-digit number and her date of birth. Id. at 2.

         After page two, it appears that the plaintiff stopped using the Social Security form. Page three of the plaintiff's complaint is a printout of a list of her seven previously filed cases in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (two of which are still open). Id. at 3. For pages four through six, it appears that the plaintiff used this district's civil complaint form for unrepresented litigants titled “COMPLAINT (for non-prisoner filers without lawyers).” Id. at 4-6. In the “statement of claim” section on page 4, the plaintiff makes allegations about stopping the Department of Motor Vehicles from giving her a driver's license and identification card; sending applications verifying employment for Milton Wright to cut off his check; stealing from deceased veterans using the plaintiff's name and Social Security number; stopping her from receiving her back pay of FoodShare for twenty years; and deleting her date of birth and Social Security number from the state system. Id. at 4. She goes on to talk about government fraud and tax fraud. Id. at 5. She does mention Social Security benefits-she says that Social Security acknowledged her disability on June 26, 2005 “and money paid for but dated 2004 of receiving Social Security benefits, ” but says she did not receive “a dime” until 2007. Id. She also alleges that “they”- perhaps “Bob Trotter, Mr. Torres, Mrs. Marcoux, ” whom she refers to as “Federal employees”-had the Milwaukee Police have her brothers Henry and Lashon “support their story of the plaintiff being crazy so that the SSI would prove no tree ever hit [her] 5 year old and [her] cause brain damage.” Id.

         The plaintiff says that she is suing for a violation of federal law; she asks for “life in prison, ” “800, 00000000, 00000000, ” background checks, and various orders (including an order requiring her to be called Annie Mae and an order requiring the federal government to build her a house to replace the one she was forced out of when she stopped the assassination of President Barak Obama-relief she also requests in Millsapp v. Fricker, et al., No. 18-cv-1656-DEJ). Id. at 6. Nowhere on pages four through six does she mention the Commissioner of Social Security, or allege that the Commissioner made errors made in deciding the plaintiff's claim for benefits.

         On page seven, the plaintiff returns to using the clerk's office's Social Security form; she says she is asking the court to review the decision of an administrative law judge issued June 26, 2006 and an Appeals Council's notice dated 2007, and she asks the court to “please see attachment” for any additional facts explaining why she is entitled to relief. Id. at 7. There is no attachment.

         The form titled “Complaint for Review of a Final Decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration”-the form the plaintiff used for pages one, two and seven-is a form for people who have applied to the Social Security Administration for benefits-like SSI or survivors' benefits- and been denied. This form allows someone ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.