Alireza SALEMI v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.

S.D. California

Alireza SALEMI v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.

DecidedDecember 10, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-02934

StatusUnknown

This text of Alireza SALEMI v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al. (Alireza SALEMI v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alireza SALEMI v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alireza SALEMI v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alireza-salemi-v-city-of-carlsbad-et-al-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack