Maria Escobedo v. Apple American Group
787 F.3d 1226
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Escobedo filed a June 2, 2011 complaint in the District of Nevada alleging sexual harassment and discrimination against Apple Nevada, within 90 days of the EEOC right-to-sue letter reportedly received March 25, 2011.
- She accompanied the complaint with a in forma pauperis (IFP) application alleging indigence.
- A magistrate judge denied the IFP application based on an alleged lack of available funds from Escobedo's spouse and gave 30 days to pay the $350 filing fee.
- Escobedo paid the filing fee on August 5, 2011, within the magistrate's 30-day window, but the district court later dismissed as untimely, adopting a filing-date rule tied to fee payment.
- The Ninth Circuit held the complaint was timely because filing occurs when the complaint is delivered to the clerk, with or without IFP, and no tolling is required for the IFP adjudication.
- The court remanded to determine proper consideration of the IFP denial and related fee-payment timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness: when is the complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)? | Escobedo filed on delivery date with IFP; timely. | Filing occurs when fee is paid, after IFP denial; untimely. | Complaint timely; filing when delivered to clerk, with IFP. |
| Abuse of discretion in denying IFP based on spouse's resources | magistrate judge failed to inquire into spouse's actual availability of funds. | denial supported by household income as basis to pay fee. | IE: denial was abuse of discretion; require reasonable inquiry into spouse resources. |
| Equitable tolling during IFP proceedings | Tolling or constructive filing allows more time. | No tolling beyond denial period. | No tolling needed; reasonable time to pay after denial must be provided. |
| Remand appropriateness | Court should evaluate IFP determination with proper inquiry. | Record sufficient for review as is. | Remand for further proceedings to apply proper standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loya v. Desert Sands Unified Sch. Dist., 721 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1983) (constructive filing when docketed within period despite local-rule noncompliance)
- Cintron v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 813 F.2d 917 (9th Cir. 1987) (papers filed when placed with clerk; defects excused)
- Williams-Guice v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, 45 F.3d 161 (7th Cir. 1995) (grace period after denial of IFP allowed to pay fee)
- Jarrett v. US Sprint Commc’ns Co., 22 F.3d 256 (10th Cir. 1994) (constructive filing; tolling during IFP denial)
- Parissi v. Telechron, Inc., 349 U.S. 46 (1955) (timeliness of notice of appeal despite late fee)
- Gee v. Tenneco, Inc., 615 F.2d 857 (9th Cir. 1980) (timeliness where filing occurs in clerk’s custody with or without fee)
- Klemm v. Astrue, 543 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2008) (notice of appeal timely when filed with clerk regardless of fee)
- United States v. Walker, 601 F.2d 1051 (9th Cir. 1979) (record not to be supplemented with new evidence on appeal)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (recognition of equitable tolling principles in extraordinary circumstances)