Emrit v. Progressive Insurance

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: April 11, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00046
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, ) CASE NO. 1:24-CV-46 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING ) vs. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE, et al., ) ORDER ) Defendants. ) ) )

Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit filed a complaint in this case against Progressive Insurance Company (“Progressive”) and Stephanie Courtney, the actress who portrays the character “Flo” in commercials for Progressive. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee, but instead, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff is a serial frivolous filer in federal courts nationwide who has now been prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis in this district. See Emrit v. Combs, Case No. 1:24-cv-441 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2024) (Polster, J.). Proceeding in forma pauperis in federal court is a privilege, not a right. See Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1998). The decision to grant or deny an application to proceed in forma pauperis “lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” Flippin v. Coburn, 107 F. App’x 520, 521 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Phipps v. King, 866 F.2d 824, 825 (6th Cir. 1988)). In accordance with Judge Polster’s order in Case No. 1:24-cv-441 prohibiting Plaintiff from proceeding in forma pauperis and detailing Plaintiff’s extensive history of filing frivolous lawsuits in federal court, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this case is DENIED. A federal district court may “at any time, sua sponte dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the allegations of a complaint are totally implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion.” Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff's complaint purports to allege state-law claims against Defendants for “public nuisance” and “tortious interference with business relations” on the basis he finds commercials he viewed featuring Flo to be “annoying.” (ECF No. 1, PageID #4-6). Plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and warrants dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Apple v. Glenn. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this matter (ECF No. 2) is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court further CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: April 11, 2024 ‘adi Shave CHARLES E.FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE