Emrit v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 13, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00265
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Case No.: 20-CV-265-CAB-KSC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 13 v. FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND SUA 14 FEDERAL BUREAU OF SPONTE DISMISSING COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION, 15 Defendant. 16 [Doc. No. 2] 17 18 Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit is a serial pro se filer of frivolous complaints in federal 19 court against government agencies and officials and large corporations and their 20 executives. Most or all of these complaints have been dismissed for improper venue or 21 failure to state a claim.1 This is yet another of Mr. Emrit’s frivolous lawsuits. Once again, 22 23 24 1 “Plaintiff has a history of abusing the IFP privilege and Plaintiff has been acknowledged as a vexatious 25 litigator in at least six district courts.” Emrit v. Universal Music Grp., No. 3:19-CV-05984-BHS, 2019 WL 6251365, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. C19-5984 BHS, 26 2019 WL 6251192 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 22, 2019). A PACER search reveals that Plaintiff has filed over 250 federal lawsuits since 2013, including 31 so far in 2020. These complaints have been filed in courts 27 ranging from the District of Hawaii to the District of Nebraska to the District of Massachusetts. A Westlaw search of all federal courts for “Ronald Satish Emrit” yields scores of orders and opinions. A 28 1 instead of paying the requisite filing fees, Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in 2 forma pauperis (“IFP”). 3 I. Motion to Proceed IFP 4 Plaintiff moves to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. All parties instituting any 5 civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the United States, except an application 6 for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An 7 action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if the plaintiff 8 is granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 9 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). All actions sought to be filed IFP under § 1915 must be 10 accompanied by an affidavit, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, that includes 11 a statement of all assets which shows inability to pay initial fees or give security. Civ LR 12 3.2.a. Here, Plaintiff’s application demonstrates that Plaintiff lacks the financial resources 13 to pay the filing fees and still afford the necessities of life. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 14 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the Court 15 GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP motion. 16 II. Sua Sponte Screening 17 Notwithstanding the foregoing, a complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed 18 IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to mandatory and sua sponte review and 19 dismissal should the Court determine, inter alia, it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state 20 a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 21 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not 22 limited to prisoners.”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose filing 23 fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic 24 incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. 25 Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 26

27 applications to proceed in forma pauperis and were dismissed for improper venue or for failure to state a 28 1 (1989)); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 1915(e) 2 not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that 3 fails to state a claim.”). 4 Here, in addition to being largely incomprehensible, the complaint is frivolous 5 because it “merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Dorsey v. Kreep, No. 6 18-CV-02588-AJB-MSB, 2019 WL 6037420, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2019) (quoting 7 Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995)). A review of the federal 8 docket reveals that Plaintiff has filed similar or identical complaints against the Federal 9 Bureau of Investigation in eight other federal district courts within the past week.2 Indeed, 10 the complaint filed in this case even states that “plaintiff is filing this cause of action in the 11 U.S. District Courts of Southern Florida, Middle Florida, and Northern Florida. . . .” [Doc. 12 No. 1 at ¶ 6.]. “Under the [first-to-file] rule, when cases involving the same parties and 13 issues have been filed in two different districts, the second district court has discretion to 14 transfer, stay, or dismiss the second case in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy.” 15 Cedars–Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the other 16 districts in which this case was filed include districts in Florida, where Plaintiff resides, 17 and the District of Columbia, where at least some of the alleged wrongful acts in the 18 complaint appear to have occurred. Meanwhile, none of the claims in the complaint arise 19 out of events that occurred in this district. Thus, these other districts are almost certainly 20 more appropriate venues for this action as well. In any event, because the other pending 21 actions were filed before this one, the Court exercises its discretion to dismiss this lawsuit 22 in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy. 23 III. Disposition 24 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 25 26 27 2 See Case No. 1:2020cv00379 (D.D.C.); Case No. 6:2020cv00191 (M.D. Fl.); Case No. 1:2020cv00031 (N.D. Fl.); Case No. 1:2020cv20544 (S.D. Fl.); Case No. 1:2020cv00059 (D. Haw.); Case No. 1:2020cv 28 1 1. The motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED; 2 2. The complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 3 3. The Court certifies that an IFP appeal from this order would be frivolous and 4 therefore would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); 5 and 6 4. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 7 It is SO ORDERED. 8 ||Dated: February 13, 2020 (6 9 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28