Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALIREZA SALEMI, Case No.: 25-CV-3387 JLS (BLM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING APPLICATION TO 14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT SECURITY, et al., 15 WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR Defendants. COSTS, 16 17 (2) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE 18 DOCUMENTS, 19 (3) DISMISSING WITHOUT 20 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 21 COMPLAINT, AND 22 (4) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 23 FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 24 25 (ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9)

26 27 28 1 Presently before the Court are pro se Plaintiff Alireza Salemi’s Complaint 2 (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1), Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees 3 or Costs (“IFP Appl.,” ECF No. 2), Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO Mot.,” 4 ECF No. 3), and Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents (“E-File Mot.,” ECF 5 No. 9). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Application, 6 DENIES Plaintiff’s E-File Motion, DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint WITHOUT 7 PREJUDICE, and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s TRO Motion. 8 IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 9 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 10 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 11 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee 12 only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1915(a)(1). 14 Section 1915(a)(1) provides: 15 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 16 proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 17 by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay 18 such fees or give security therefor. 19 20 As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets to warrant 21 IFP status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. See 22 Cal. Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Section 1915 typically 23 requires the reviewing court to exercise its sound discretion in determining whether the 24 affiant has satisfied the statute’s requirement of indigency.”), reversed on other grounds 25 26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 27 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. 28 Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 1 by, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient where 2 it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of life.” 3 Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont 4 de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely destitute to 5 obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 6 1960). “Nevertheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with some 7 particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 8 In Plaintiff’s IFP Application, Plaintiff states that his monthly income is $8,000 and 9 that his spouse’s monthly income is $3,000, for a total monthly income of $11,000. IFP 10 Appl. at 2. Plaintiff lists Viasat as his employer, with a gross monthly pay of $12,500. Id. 11 at 2. He further provides that he has $8,000 in his checking account, $227 in his savings 12 account, and $606,000 in his retirement account. Id. Plaintiff lists a home valued at 13 $1,700,000 and a Honda CRV valued at $8,000 as assets. Id. at 3. His total monthly 14 expenses are $12,638. Id. at 4–5. Because Plaintiff owns a home, owns a vehicle, has 15 savings, and receives a monthly income of at least $11,000, Plaintiff has not demonstrated 16 that paying the $405 filing fee would result in his inability to afford the necessities of life. 17 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s IFP Application. 18 MOTION TO ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOCUMENTS 19 Plaintiff seeks permission to electronically file in this case. E-File Mot. at 1. 20 Generally, “[e]xcept as prescribed by local rule, order, or other procedure, the Court has 21 designated all cases to be assigned to the Electronic Filing System.” S.D. Cal. CivLR 22 5.4(a). With respect to pro se litigants, however, “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the 23 court, all documents submitted for filing to the Clerk’s Office . . . must be in legible, paper 24 form.” Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of 25 California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 2(b) 26 27 28 1 (Sept. 24, 2025) [hereinafter “ECF Manual]. “A pro se party seeking leave to 2 electronically file documents must file a motion and demonstrate the means to do so 3 properly by stating their equipment and software capabilities in addition to agreeing to 4 follow all rules and policies in the CM/ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures 5 Manual.” Id. 6 The ECF Manual refers to the Court’s official website for CM/ECF technical 7 specifications, id. § 1(i), which include a “[c]omputer running on Windows or Macintosh”; 8 “[s]oftware to convert documents from a word processor format to portable document 9 format (PDF),” such as “Adobe Acrobat 7.0 and higher”; “[i]nternet access supporting a 10 transfer rate of 56kb or higher”; a compatible browser, such as “Firefox 3.5, and Internet 11 Explorer 6.0 and 7.0”; a “[s]canner to image non-computerized documents 400 pixels per 12 inch (ppi)”; and a PACER account. United States District Court, Southern District of 13 California, CM/ECF Information: General Information, 14 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/cmecf.aspx (last visited Oct. 23, 2025). 15 Here, although Plaintiff has agreed to be bound by the rules and policies in the ECF 16 Manual, he has not provided the required particulars about his access to technology 17 conforming to the CM/ECF technical specifications noted above. See E-File Mot. at 1. 18 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s E-File Motion. 19 CONCLUSION 20 In light of the foregoing, the Court: 21 1. DENIES Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without 22 Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2). 23 2. DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Electronically File Documents (ECF 24 No. 9). 25 3. DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE 26 27 2 Available at: 28 https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/cmecf/Electronic%20Case%20Filing%20Procedures%20Ma 1 || for failure to prepay the filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. §1914(a). 2 4. DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 3 || (ECF No. 3). 4 5. GRANTS Plaintiff an additional thirty (30) days from the date on which this 5 |}Order is electronically docketed to either (1) pay the entire $402 statutory and 6 administrative filing fee, or (2) file a new IFP Application alleging that they are unable to 7 || pay the requisite fee. Should Plaintiff fail to either pay the filing fee or file a new IFP 8 || Motion, the Court will convert this dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint into dismissal of 9 || this civil action without prejudice. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | Dated: March 19, 2026 .

on. Janis L. Sammartino 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28