Selger v. County of San Diego et al

1
3:25-cv-3395-CAB-VET
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
SCOTT REID SELGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3395-CAB-VET
ORDER:
(1) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP [Doc. No. 3];
(2) DENYING MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL [Doc. No. 2]
On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff Scott Reid Selger, proceeding pro se, sued
Defendants County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, Chula Vista Police Department,
Chula Vista Police Officer Does 1–4, et al., pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	[Doc. No. 1
(“Complaint”).] 	Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, he filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 	[Doc. No. 3.] 	Additionally, Plaintiff filed a
motion to appoint counsel. [Doc. No. 2.]
Generally, all parties instituting a civil action in this Court must pay a filing fee. See
28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); CivLR 4.5(a). 	But under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may
authorize any suit’s commencement, prosecution, or defense without payment of fees if the
plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all his or her assets, showing he or
Case 3:25-cv-03395-CAB-VET Document 4 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:25-cv-3395-CAB-VET
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
she is unable to pay filing fees or costs. “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). 	“[A]
plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and
certainty.” 	Id. 	(internal quotation marks omitted). Granting or denying leave to proceed
IFP in civil cases is within the district court’s sound discretion. 	Venable v. Meyers, 500
F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff states his income is $299 per month in CalFresh benefits with $299 in
monthly expenses, which he states is exclusively for food. 	[See generally Doc. No. 3.]
However, Plaintiff does not explain how he has no other income, including gifts or family
support, or expenses, including rent or a mortgage. Plaintiff’s application lacks sufficient
particularity. 	The Court DENIES his motion to proceed IFP. 	Plaintiff must file an
amended application by March 19, 2026 or the case shall be DISMISSED. 	As his IFP
application is DENIED, the Court DENIES the motion to appoint counsel as moot. 	See
Kelly v. FBI, No. 23-CV-696-TWR-KSC, 2023 WL 3322590, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 9,
2023) (denying motion to appoint counsel as moot where IFP application was denied).
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03395-CAB-VET Document 4 Filed 02/19/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2