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 FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF 5) AND
DENYING MOTION TO
ELECTRONICALLY FILE (ECF 6)
Plaintiff Alireza Salemi, proceeding without an attorney, requests reconsideration of
the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis and has attached a now-complete
IFP request. (Compare ECF 4 with ECF 5.) Despite the motion’s styling as one for
reconsideration, 	the 	Court 	will 	instead 	treat 	it 	as 	a 	new 	motion 	for 	IFP, 	since
reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy,” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), that “should be used sparingly,” Bennett v. United States, No. 23-
cv-01140-BAS-BLM, 2025 WL 745870, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2025). Even under the
lower standard for a new IFP motion, however, plaintiff has not met his burden to proceed
IFP.
Plaintiff’s new motion indicates that he has a “monthly income” of “approximately
$11,000.” (ECF 5, at 1). Plaintiff also claims assets, including an “investment account”
with “$606,000” and “home equity” valued at “1,700,000.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that,
despite these significant assets, his “expenses” of at least “$12,638” cause a “monthly
deficit” of “$1,638.” (Id.) He insists that “paying the $405 filing fee would require
[p]laintiff to sacrifice food, medicine, or shelter,” but these monthly expenses are listed at
rather high amounts, including “$3,588” for a mortgage, “$3,600” for a hotel, “$3,650” for
“food,” “$500” for “medical/dental,” and “$400” for “Uber.” (Id.)
Even though plaintiff “need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP,” 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 7 Filed 12/31/25 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). Plaintiff has not sufficiently
articulated a need to file without paying the fees. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis
is denied.
Plaintiff also moved for leave to electronically file documents. (ECF 6.) The Court
is only able to rule on motions after a complaint is properly filed, which has not yet
occurred here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (noting that “a civil action is commenced by filing a
complaint”). So, this motion also fails.
Thus, the Court orders as follows:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s motion for leave to electronically file is DENIED without prejudice.
3. 	By January 31, 2026, plaintiff must pay the full filing fee. Failure to do so will
result in a final dismissal. After paying the fee, plaintiff may re-file a motion for leave to
electronically file documents.
Dated: December 31, 2025
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-02934-AGS-MSB Document 7 Filed 12/31/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2