Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01117/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSARIO MARINELLO

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-1117 BZ

ORDER REQUIRING AMENDED

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff has applied to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Having reviewed the application, I find that I cannot properly

evaluate it because it contains conflicting or incomplete

financial information. 

 In her application, plaintiff claims to make $300 per

month “from Securities trades,” lists no other monthly income,

and lists $2100 in a savings account. Her monthly expenses,

however, exceed $1000. It is thus unclear how plaintiff

covers her monthly expenses. Moreover, although plaintiff

states she earns $300 per month in securities trades, she

Case 3:07-cv-01117-BZ Document 8 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 2
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

lists no securities holdings as assets under question seven. 

These conflicting and incomplete responses preclude me from

meaningfully evaluating plaintiff’s eligibility to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

 For these reasons, and for good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff must either submit an amended

application or pay the ordinary filing fee and proceed

accordingly. By no later than Friday, April 6, 2007,

plaintiff shall either file an amended application or pay the

filing fee of $350.00. Failure to take one of these actions

by that date will result in dismissal of this action without

prejudice. Any amended application should address the

questions raised in this Order. Plaintiff is reminded that if

she chooses to pay the filing fee rather than amend her

application, she is responsible for serving her complaint and

any amendments or attachments, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4.

Dated: March 6, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Marinello\ORDER.DENY.IN.FORM.PAUP.wpd

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Bernard Zimmerman

Case 3:07-cv-01117-BZ Document 8 Filed 03/21/07 Page 2 of 2