Alireza SALEMI v. CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Alireza SALEMI, Case No.: 25-cv-2934-AGS-MSB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF 5) AND v. DENYING MOTION TO CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al., ELECTRONICALLY FILE (ECF 6) 7 Defendants.

9 Plaintiff Alireza Salemi, proceeding without an attorney, requests reconsideration of the denial of his petition to proceed in forma pauperis and has attached a now-complete IFP request. (Compare ECF 4 with ECF 5.) Despite the motion’s styling as one for reconsideration, the Court will instead treat it as a new motion for IFP, since 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- cv-01140-BAS-BLM, 2025 WL 745870, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2025). Even under the lower standard for a new IFP motion, however, plaintiff has not met his burden to proceed IFP.

18 Plaintiff’s new motion indicates that he has a “monthly income” of “approximately $11,000.” (ECF 5, at 1). Plaintiff also claims assets, including an “investment account” with “$606,000” and “home equity” valued at “1,700,000.” (Id.) Plaintiff asserts that, despite these significant assets, his “expenses” of at least “$12,638” cause a “monthly deficit” of “$1,638.” (Id.) He insists that “paying the $405 filing fee would require [p]laintiff to sacrifice food, medicine, or shelter,” but these monthly expenses are listed at rather high amounts, including “$3,588” for a mortgage, “$3,600” for a hotel, “$3,650” for “food,” “$500” for “medical/dental,” and “$400” for “Uber.” (Id.) 26 Even though plaintiff “need not be completely destitute to proceed IFP,” Blount v. Saul, No. 21-cv-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021), a court may deny IFP when applicants are “unable, or unwilling, to verify their poverty,” || United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff has not sufficiently || 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 ||is only able to rule on motions after a complaint is properly filed, which has not yet || occurred here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (noting that “a civil action is commenced by filing a ||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 |/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