United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
GARY L. CHUTE, individually and personally, and as the personal representative of the Estate of Donna M. Chute; Plaintiff,
HONORABLE JEFFREY L. VIKEN, in his official capacity and individually; HONORABLE DANIEL L. HOVLAND, in his official capacity and individually; HONORABLE RAYMOND GRUENDER, in his official capacity and individually; HONORABLE DIANA MURPHY in her official capacity and individually; HONORABLE LAVENSKI SMITH in his official capacity and individually; HONORABLE WILLIAM JAY RJLEY in his official capacity and individually; BRENDAN V. JOHNSON, United States Attorney, in his official capacity and individually; STEPHANIE BENGFORD, Assistant United States Attorney, in her official capacity and individually; MICHAEL S. HOWARD, Assistant Counsel, Social Security Administration, in his official capacity and individually; CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, in her official capacity; JEFFREY B. WALL, Acting Solicitor General, in his official capacity and individually; JUDGE VIKEN'S UNKNOWN LAW CLERKS, in their official capacity and individually; JUDGE HOVLAND'S UNKNOWN LAW CLERKS, in their official capacity and individually; AND EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PANEL JUDGES AND LAW CLERKS, in their official, capacity and individually; Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS ANDDISMISSING COMPLAFNT FN PART, AND DIRECTFNG
LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Chute filed a pro se complaint against several named and
unnamed defendants alleging violations of his civil rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 407(a)-(b), 42 U.S.C. §
1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), 42 U.S.C. § 1986, 42
U.S.C. § 1988, The Americans with Disabilities Act, and
the Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights.
Additionally, Chute calls the court to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over all defendant's alleged violations of
S.D.C.L. § 16-18-28 and defendant attorney's alleged
violations of S.D.C.L. § 16-18-26(1). Chute moves for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis in his lawsuit
instant complaint alleges a complex conspiracy aimed to
deprive Chute of his disability benefits. The alleged facts
came about during and as a result of earlier litigation in
Civ. 11-5062. The earlier litigation began on August 5, 2011,
when Chute filed a complaint appealing the denial of his
application for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental security income benefits by defendant, the
Commissioner of Social Security Administration. Civ. 11-5062
at Doc. 1.
March 7, 2012, Judge Viken granted defendant's motion to
remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Civ. 11-5062 at Doc. 23. On remand, the Administrative Law
Judge issued a partially favorable decision, finding Chute
was disabled beginning on January 3, 2012. Civ. 11-5062 at
the partially favorable decision for Chute, the Commissioner
moved for an order reversing and remanding the action for
further administrative proceedings to determine whether the
alleged onset of disability occurred prior to January 3,
2012. Id. Judge Viken granted defendant's motion
to remand on October 29, 2013. Id. Despite the
remand, Chute alleges that he became eligible for Medicare on
July 1, 2014. Soon after, Chute alleges that Dr. Jacqueline
Van Egeraat requested that he receive medical tests. On July
25, 2014, Chute went to The Imaging Center for the tests.
September 9, 2014, an administrative decision favorable to
Chute was filed, awarding benefits to Chute. As a result, on
November 10, 2014, Chute entered current pay status and back
benefits under Title 2 were paid to Chute in the amount of
$60, 324. Civ. 11-5062 at Doc. 19.
the September 9, 2014, administrative decision, Chute
received a letter on September 24, 2014, notifying him that
his entitlement date for medical insurance changed to an
earlier date, January 2011. Chute alleges that he did not
want the earlier Medicare benefits and did not write to the
Social Security Administration as the letter directed him to
do if he wanted the earlier Medicare benefits. Chute alleges
he proceeded this way, because he believed to already be
covered by Medicare benefits that started in July of 2014.
alleges that shortly after receiving the letter regarding an
earlier entitlement date Chute received a new Medicare card.
Chute alleges that he did not notice the effective date for
his Medical Insurance Part B had been changed from 07-01-14
to 09-01-17. Furthermore, Chute alleges that he was
incorrectly refunded July and August Medicare Part B payments
as a result of an unlawful cancelation of Chute's
Medicare Part B coverage.
alleges that Medicare wrongfully denied payment of $3, 774.08
to The Imaging Center Dakota PET CT and MRI for the
procedures performed on July 25, 2014. Chute further alleges
that this bill was turned over to Credit Collections Bureau
and has been accumulating interest ever since. Chute alleges
that this is a result of a conspiracy amongst defendants.
is a two-step screening process with in forma
pauperis litigants. Martin-Trigona v. Stewart,
691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982); see also, Key v.
Does, 217 F.Supp.3d 1006, 1006 (E.D. Ark. 2016). First,
district courts must determine whether a plaintiff is
financially eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a). Id. Second, district courts
are to determine whether the complaint should be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Id.
court may authorize the commencement of suit without
prepayment of fees when an applicant files an affidavit
stating she is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Determining whether an applicant is
sufficiently impoverished to qualify to proceed in forma
pauperis under § 1915 is committed to the court's
discretion. Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d
1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983). "In forma pauperis status
does not ...