Salemi v. City of Carlsbad et al

1
25-cv-2934-AGS-MSB
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.
CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 25-cv-2934-AGS-MSB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
(ECF 2)
Plaintiff Alireza Salemi, proceeding without an attorney, seeks to waive the filing
fee for his lawsuit against the City of Carlsbad and other government entities. But he has
not justified waiving that fee, so his motion is denied with leave to refile.
Parties instituting a civil action in a federal district court must typically pay filing
fees of $405. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) ($350 filing fee); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule,
§ 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023) ($55 administrative fee). But if granted the right to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”), a plaintiff can proceed without prepaying those fees. Rodriguez
v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).
Though only half of the IFP application is on the record (see generally ECF 2), based
on the available information plaintiff would not qualify for IFP status. His application
indicates that he has a “monthly income” of “$8,000” and his “spouse” has a “monthly
income” of “$3,000.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff also claims assets, including a “home” valued at
“1,700,000” and an “$8,000” “motor vehicle.” (Id. at 2.) Though plaintiff’s “monthly
expenses” of at least “$12,638” exceed his $11,000 “household income,” he has not
sufficiently explained why his listed “assets” would be unavailable. (Id. at 3, 1.) Plaintiff
merely asserts that “[p]ayment of [$405] would require cutting food or medical care.” (Id.
at 3.)
Even though plaintiff “need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP,” see Blount
v. Saul, No. 21-cv-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021), a court
may deny IFP when applicants are “unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty,”
Case 3:25-cv-02934-AGS-MSB Document 4 Filed 12/10/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-2934-AGS-MSB
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 v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). The motion to proceed in
forma pauperis is denied, but, given Salemi’s unrepresented status, the Court grants him
leave to file an updated IFP petition.
Thus, the Court orders as follows:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
2. 	By January 16, 2026, plaintiff must pay the full filing fee or file any updated
IFP petition. Failure to do so will result in a final dismissal.
Dated: December 10, 2025
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02934-AGS-MSB Document 4 Filed 12/10/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2