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.

TOSCANO v. AT&T CORPORATION

June 3, 2005.

LOUIS PAUL TOSCANO, Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARY COOPER, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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).

THE APPLICATION

  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 income." (Id.)

  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. 8,10,11.)

  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 ...


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.