Salemi v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al

1
25-CV-3387 JLS (BLM)
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ALIREZA SALEMI,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-CV-3387 JLS (BLM)
ORDER:
(1) DENYING APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT
WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR
COSTS,
(2) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE
DOCUMENTS,
(3) DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT, AND
(4) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER
(ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9)
Case 3:25-cv-03387-JLS-BLM Document 14 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 5

2
25-CV-3387 JLS (BLM)
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
Presently 	before 	the 	Court 	are 	pro 	se 	Plaintiff 	Alireza 	Salemi’s 	Complaint
(“Compl.,” ECF No. 1), Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs (“IFP Appl.,” ECF No. 2), Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Mot.,”
ECF No. 3), and Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents (“E-File Mot.,” ECF
No. 9). 	For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Application,
DENIES 	Plaintiff’s E-File Motion, 	DISMISSES 	Plaintiff’s Complaint 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s TRO Motion.
IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the
United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee
only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1).
Section 1915(a)(1) provides:
[A]ny 	court 	of 	the 	United 	States 	may 	authorize 	the
commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or
proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor,
by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of
all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay
such fees or give security therefor.
As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets to warrant
IFP status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. 	See
Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically
requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the
affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other grounds
1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff.
Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. Id.
Case 3:25-cv-03387-JLS-BLM Document 14 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 5

3
25-CV-3387 JLS (BLM)
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
by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where
it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.”
Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont
de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely destitute to
obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir.
1960). 	“Nevertheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some
particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234.
In Plaintiff’s IFP Application, Plaintiff states that his monthly income is $8,000 and
that his spouse’s monthly income is $3,000, for a total monthly income of $11,000. IFP
Appl. at 2. Plaintiff lists Viasat as his employer, with a gross monthly pay of $12,500. Id.
at 2. He further provides that he has $8,000 in his checking account, $227 in his savings
account, and $606,000 in his retirement account. 	Id. 	Plaintiff lists a home valued at
$1,700,000 and a Honda CRV valued at $8,000 as assets. 	Id. at 3. 	His total monthly
expenses are $12,638. 	Id. at 4–5. 	Because Plaintiff owns a home, owns a vehicle, has
savings, and receives a monthly income of at least $11,000, Plaintiff has not demonstrated
that paying the $405 filing fee would result in his inability to afford the necessities of life.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Application.
MOTION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff seeks permission to electronically file in this case. 	E-File Mot. at 1.
Generally, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court has
designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System.” 	S.D. Cal. CivLR
5.4(a). 	With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the
court, all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office . . . must be in legible, paper
form.” 	Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b)
Case 3:25-cv-03387-JLS-BLM Document 14 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 5

4
25-CV-3387 JLS (BLM)
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
(Sept. 24, 2025) [hereinafter “ECF Manual].2 “A pro se party seeking leave to
electronically file documents must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so
properly by stating their equipment and software capabilities in addition to agreeing to
follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures
Manual.” Id.
The ECF Manual refers to the Court’s official website for CM/ECF technical
specifications, id. § 1(i), which include a “[c]omputer running on Windows or Macintosh”;
“[s]oftware to convert documents from a word processor format to portable document
format (PDF),” such as “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher”; “[i]nternet access supporting a
transfer rate of 56kb or higher”; a compatible browser, such as “Firefox 3.5, and Internet
Explorer 6.0 and 7.0”; a “[s]canner to image non-computerized documents 400 pixels per
inch (ppi)”; and a PACER account. 	United States District Court, Southern District of
California, 	CM/ECF 	Information: 	General 	Information,
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx (last visited Oct. 23, 2025).
Here, although Plaintiff has agreed to be bound by the rules and policies in the ECF
Manual, he has not provided the required particulars about his access to technology
conforming to the CM/ECF technical specifications noted above. 	See E-File Mot. at 1.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s E-File Motion.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court:
1. 	DENIES 	Plaintiff’s 	Application 	to 	Proceed 	in 	District 	Court 	Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2).
2. 	DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents (ECF
No. 9).
3. 	DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
2 Available at:
https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/cmecf/Electronic%20Case%20Filing%20Procedures%20Ma
nual.pdf.
Case 3:25-cv-03387-JLS-BLM Document 14 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 5

5
25-CV-3387 JLS (BLM)
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
for failure to prepay the filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. §1914(a).
4. 	DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(ECF No. 3).
5. 	GRANTS Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date on which this
Order 	is 	electronically 	docketed 	to 	either 	(1) 	pay 	the 	entire 	$402 	statutory 	and
administrative filing fee, or (2) file a new IFP Application alleging that they are unable to
pay the requisite fee. 	Should Plaintiff fail to either pay the filing fee or file a new IFP
Motion, the Court will convert this dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint into dismissal of
this civil action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 19, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03387-JLS-BLM Document 14 Filed 03/19/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 5