Alireza SALEMI v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Alireza Salemi, proceeding pro se, moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a civil action against the City of Carlsbad and other entities. The court denied the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to justify his inability to pay despite listing significant assets, but granted leave to refile an updated petition or pay the fee by January 16, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a plaintiff need not be completely destitute but must demonstrate an inability to pay. The plaintiff listed substantial assets (a home valued at $1.7 million and a vehicle) and a combined household income of $11,000/month. While his claimed expenses exceeded his income, he failed to explain why these liquid or semi-liquid assets were unavailable to pay the $405 fee, offering only a conclusory statement about cutting food or medical care. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court has discretion to deny IFP status when the applicant fails to verify poverty or justify the unavailability of assets. The grant of leave to refile is appropriate given the pro se status and the incomplete nature of the initial application. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and applies the correct legal standards for IFP petitions. It correctly identifies that while destitution is not required, the applicant must justify why assets are unavailable. The court appropriately cites Ninth Circuit authority (McQuade) regarding the verification of poverty. The decision to deny but grant leave to refile is a standard and equitable response to a pro se litigant who has not fully substantiated their financial status.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Alireza SALEMI, Case No.: 25-cv-2934-AGS-MSB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 5 v. (ECF 2) 6 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Alireza Salemi, proceeding without an attorney, seeks to waive the filing 10 fee for his lawsuit against the City of Carlsbad and other government entities. But he has 11 not justified waiving that fee, so his motion is denied with leave to refile. 12 Parties instituting a civil action in a federal district court must typically pay filing 13 fees of $405. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) ($350 filing fee); District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, 14 § 14 (effective Dec. 1, 2023) ($55 administrative fee). But if granted the right to proceed 15 in forma pauperis (“IFP”), a plaintiff can proceed without prepaying those fees. Rodriguez 16 v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 17 Though only half of the IFP application is on the record (see generally ECF 2), based 18 on the available information plaintiff would not qualify for IFP status. His application 19 indicates that he has a “monthly income” of “$8,000” and his “spouse” has a “monthly 20 income” of “$3,000.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiff also claims assets, including a “home” valued at 21 “1,700,000” and an “$8,000” “motor vehicle.” (Id. at 2.) Though plaintiff’s “monthly 22 expenses” of at least “$12,638” exceed his $11,000 “household income,” he has not 23 sufficiently explained why his listed “assets” would be unavailable. (Id. at 3, 1.) Plaintiff 24 merely asserts that “[p]ayment of [$405] would require cutting food or medical care.” (Id. 25 at 3.) 26 Even though plaintiff “need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP,” see Blount 27 v. Saul, No. 21-cv-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021), a court 28 may deny IFP when applicants are “unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty,” 1 || United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). The motion to proceed in 2 forma pauperis is denied, but, given Salemi’s unrepresented status, the Court grants him 3 || leave to file an updated IFP petition. 4 Thus, the Court orders as follows: 5 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 6 2. By January 16, 2026, plaintiff must pay the full filing fee or file any updated 7 || IFP petition. Failure to do so will result in a final dismissal. 8 || Dated: December 10, 2025 10 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28