Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06057/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06057-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Because defendant has not yet been served, it is not a party to this action. As such,

the court currently has consent over all parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Neals v.

Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to

dismiss prison inmate’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of

defendants because defendants had not been served yet and therefore were not parties); see

also United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that

magistrate judge had jurisdiction to enter default judgment in in rem forfeiture action even

though property owner had not consented, because the owner failed to comply with

applicable filing requirements and therefore was not a party).

*E-filed 3/17/08*

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DARLENE BREWER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COMERICA BANK,

Defendant. /

No. C07-06057 HRL

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Re: Docket No. 2

On November 30, 2007, Darlene Brewer sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. On that same day, she filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. In January of

2008, plaintiff consented that all proceedings in this matter may be heard and finally

adjudicated by the undersigned. FED.R.CIV.P. 73; 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Accordingly, this court

has authority to decide this application. See, e.g., Tripati v. Rison, 847 F.2d 548 (9th Cir.1988)

(noting that absent consent of all parties to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction, Magistrate Judge not

authorized to deny motion to proceed in forma pauperis).1

Case 5:07-cv-06057-HRL Document 6 Filed 03/17/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a person submitting the application to proceed in forma

pauperis must include a statement of all assets demonstrating the person is unable to pay the

court costs and fees. Also see Civil Local Rule 3-10(b). The policy for allowing plaintiffs to

proceed in forma pauperis is to protect litigants from abandoning “what may be a meritorious

claim in order to spare himself complete destitution.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

335 U.S. 331, 340 (1948). An affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis is sufficient if it indicates

"that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to

provide himself and dependents' with the necessities of life." Id. at 339. 

This court's filing fee for a civil case is $350. According to her application, Brewer's

income totals approximately $30,576 a year or $2,582 a month ($1680 after taxes). Further, she

states that her monthly expenses for rent, food, utilities and clothing total approximately $977. 

Brewer also makes monthly debt payments of approximately $125. The post-tax income minus

necessity expenses and debt payments leaves a balance of approximately $578 per month.

Therefore, Brewer's income is sufficient to require her to pay the court filing fee without

depriving her of the ability to pay for necessities.

CONCLUSION 

The Application to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. The filing fee of $350.00

shall be paid no later than April 14, 2008. Failure to pay the filing fee by that date will result

in dismissal of the above-entitled action without prejudice. 

The plaintiff is hereby apprised of her responsibility to serve the complaint and any

amendments, scheduling orders and attachments, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Furthermore, given the delay in the processing of this application, the court

will extend plaintiff's time to serve defendant with a summons until June 12, 2008.

The Case Management Conference currently set for March 18, 2008 is continued to July

8, 2008 at 1:30 p.m (Courtroom 2, 5th floor of the United States District Court, San Jose). The

parties' joint case management statement shall be filed no later than July 1, 2008. 

//

Case 5:07-cv-06057-HRL Document 6 Filed 03/17/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Once defendant has appeared, Brewer shall provide it with a copy of this notice. 

Finally, plaintiff has a continuing obligation to keep the court informed of her current address. 

Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/17/08 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:07-cv-06057-HRL Document 6 Filed 03/17/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT NOTICE WILL BE SENT TO: 

Darlene Brewer

1035 McKay Drive #24

San Jose, CA 95131

Dated: 3/17/08 KRO 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Lloyd

Case 5:07-cv-06057-HRL Document 6 Filed 03/17/08 Page 4 of 4