Alireza SALEMI v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (treated as a new motion) to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for leave to electronically file. The court denied the IFP motion due to the plaintiff's significant assets and high expenses, and denied the electronic filing motion without prejudice because no complaint had been filed.
| 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 inability to pay. The plaintiff's reported assets ($606,000 investment, $1.7M home equity) and high monthly expenses (including $3,600 for a hotel and $3,588 mortgage) strongly suggest an ability to pay the $405 filing fee without sacrificing basic necessities. The denial is supported by the record recited in the order. |
Motion for leave to electronically file denied without prejudice“Plaintiff’s motion for leave to electronically file is DENIED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly noted that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3, a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint. Since no complaint has been filed, the court lacks the procedural context to rule on electronic filing permissions for the case. Denying without prejudice allows the plaintiff to re-file the motion after paying the fee and filing a complaint. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly recharacterizes the motion for reconsideration as a new IFP motion, citing appropriate authority for the high bar of reconsideration. It applies the correct legal standard for IFP eligibility, noting that while destitution is not required, the plaintiff's significant assets and high discretionary expenses undermine the claim of inability to pay. The denial of the electronic filing motion is procedurally correct as no case has been commenced. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the facts presented in the plaintiff's filings.
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 FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF 5) AND 5 v. DENYING MOTION TO 6 CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., ELECTRONICALLY FILE (ECF 6) 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Alireza Salemi, proceeding without an attorney, requests reconsideration of 10 the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis and has attached a now-complete 11 IFP request. (Compare ECF 4 with ECF 5.) Despite the motion’s styling as one for 12 reconsideration, the Court will instead treat it as a new motion for IFP, since 13 reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy,” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 14 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000), that “should be used sparingly,” Bennett v. United States, No. 23- 15 cv-01140-BAS-BLM, 2025 WL 745870, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2025). Even under the 16 lower standard for a new IFP motion, however, plaintiff has not met his burden to proceed 17 IFP. 18 Plaintiff’s new motion indicates that he has a “monthly income” of “approximately 19 $11,000.” (ECF 5, at 1). Plaintiff also claims assets, including an “investment account” 20 with “$606,000” and “home equity” valued at “1,700,000.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that, 21 despite these significant assets, his “expenses” of at least “$12,638” cause a “monthly 22 deficit” of “$1,638.” (Id.) He insists that “paying the $405 filing fee would require 23 [p]laintiff to sacrifice food, medicine, or shelter,” but these monthly expenses are listed at 24 rather high amounts, including “$3,588” for a mortgage, “$3,600” for a hotel, “$3,650” for 25 “food,” “$500” for “medical/dental,” and “$400” for “Uber.” (Id.) 26 Even though plaintiff “need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP,” Blount v. 27 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). Plaintiff has not sufficiently 2 || articulated a need to file without paying the fees. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis 3 denied. 4 Plaintiff also moved for leave to electronically file documents. (ECF 6.) The Court 5 ||is only able to rule on motions after a complaint is properly filed, which has not yet 6 || occurred here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (noting that “a civil action is commenced by filing a 7 ||complaint’). So, this motion also fails. 8 Thus, the Court orders as follows: 9 1. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 10 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to electronically file is DENIED without prejudice. 1] 3. By January 31, 2026, plaintiff must pay the full filing fee. Failure to do so will 12 |/result in a final dismissal. After paying the fee, plaintiff may re-file a motion for leave to 13 electronically file documents. 14 || Dated: December 31, 2025 16 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28