The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARY COOPER, District Judge
THIS MATTER ARISES on the (1) in-forma-pauperis application
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and (2) motion for assignment of
pro bono counsel, by the plaintiff pro se, Louis Paul
Toscano. This appears to be an action against defendants
identified as AT&T Corporation ("AT&T"), Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company ("CGL"), Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
New Jersey ("BCBS"), Magellan Health Services ("MHS"),
Communications Workers of America Local 1058 ("CWA"), and the New
Jersey Department of the Public Advocate to recover damages for
discrimination. The Court will address the application and motion
before reviewing the complaint's sufficiency. See Roman v.
Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 194 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1990).
Toscano states he has received (1) $5,544 in
long-term-disability payments, (2) $11,011 in social security
payments, and (3) $220 in interest income. (App., at 1-2.) He
also states he owns (1) five shares of AT&T stock and (2) a 2003 Honda Element.
(Id. at 2.) He asserts that his "expenses almost always exceed
The responses as to payments and income may be based on his
"2004 tax return" a handwritten notation on the application
(id. at 1) but that is not clear. It is also not clear
whether these are the total payments and income for all of 2004
and, if so, whether he has received or expects to receive
payments in 2005.
The Court intends to deny the application. The Court is
authorized to do so when a plaintiff fails to reveal entitlement
to in-forma-pauperis relief. See Spence v. Cmty. Life
Improv., No. 03-3406, 2003 WL 21500007, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 26,
2003); Daniels v. County of Media, No. 03-377, 2003 WL
21294910, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2003); White v. Carollo, No.
01-4553, 2001 WL 1159845, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2001).
The Court cannot determine from the application if Toscano has
the financial means to pay the filing fee because his answers are
incomplete and unclear. In any event, assuming his 2005 income is
in line with what appears to be his 2004 income, and as he is
able to maintain a late-model automobile, he is not entitled to
this relief. He is not entitled to such relief merely because his
expenses exceed his income. His motion for assignment of pro
bono counsel also will be denied. THE COMPLAINT
The Court may (1) review the complaint, and (2) direct sua
sponte that it not be filed if it is frivolous, or fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). See Mariani v. United States,
212 F.3d 761, 769 (3d Cir. 2000).
I. EEOC Charge, EEOC Notice, & Previous Civil Action
Toscano has submitted copies of a charge he filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and a resulting
EEOC notice. In addition, he mentions a previous federal action
in his papers. The Court is able to discern the following from
those documents and the docket for the previous federal action.
Toscano worked for AT&T until 1992, and has received longterm
disability payments since that time for "behavioral health
problems." (2-24-05 EEOC Charge.) He became involved in a dispute
in 2001 against, among others, CGL concerning his benefits.
(See Toscano v. Cigna Corp., D.N.J. Dkt. No. 01-3669 (GEB)).
That action was settled in 2001. (See id., dkt. entry nos.
Toscano filed an EEOC charge on February 24, 2005, against
AT&T, alleging discrimination based on race, religion,
retaliation, and disability. (2-24-05 EEOC Charge.) The EEOC
denied the charge as untimely in March 2005. (3-15-05 EEOC Not.) II. Attachment
Toscano has submitted in addition to a form complaint a
seventeen-page, single-spaced attachment, which apparently sets
forth his claims against the defendants ("Attachment"). The Court
is unable to discern exactly what he is claiming as to each
defendant. The Attachment presents (1) a hodgepodge of seemingly
unconnected events, and (2) few, if any, dates for ...