Ronald Satish Emrit, Satish Dat Beat, Gogo Satish v. Snoop Doggy Dogg, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 8, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00007
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Jan 08, 2026 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 RONALD SATISH EMRIT, SATISH DAT BEAT, GOGO SATISH, No. 2:26-CV-00007-MKD 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 v. 10 SNOOP DOGGY DOGG, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on January 7, 2026. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff 15 Ronald Satish Emrit also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF 16 No. 2. A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a 18 complaint that is, among other things, frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 19 Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 20 1 Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ allegations liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of San 2 Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court concludes Plaintiffs’

3 Complaint is frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (noting 4 a complaint is factually frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the 5 irrational or the wholly incredible”); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28

6 (1989) (noting a complaint is frivolous if its factual allegations are “clearly 7 baseless,” “fantastic,” or “delusional”); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 8 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that a plaintiff “may cross the line into 9 frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false”).

10 The Court thus dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 11 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further denies leave to amend. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t 12 of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a court dismisses

13 a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it 14 is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint). 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 16 1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28

17 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 18 2. Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit’s application to proceed in forma 19 pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED as moot.

20 1 3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 2 of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any

3 arguable basis in law or fact. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this 5 Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to Plaintiffs, and CLOSE the file.

6 DATED January 8, 2026.

7 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20