Ronald Satish Emrit v. Kim Kardashian, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Alaska
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00357
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA RONALD SATISH EMRIT,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:25-cv-00357-SLG

KIM KARDASHIAN, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL On December 15, 2025, self-represented litigant Ronald Satish Emrit (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, a civil cover sheet, and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee.1 On January 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in this case,2 which was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 20, 2026.3 The Court has now screened the Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, 1915A. As with his previous complaints, Plaintiff has not alleged any legally recognized harms or injuries traceable to any particular Defendants’ conduct that a court could possibly resolve, and his claims lack an arguable basis in law and fact.4 Additionally, the Complaint lacks any basis upon which the Court

1 Dockets 1–3. 2 Docket 5. 3 Docket 7. 4 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). can establish it has personal jurisdiction over the named Defendants or could be considered a proper venue for this action.5 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes

judicial notice6 of the hundreds of complaints Plaintiff has filed in federal courts across the country that have been dismissed as frivolous.7 The Ninth Circuit has entered a pre-filing review order against Plaintiff,8 and Plaintiff has been deemed a “vexatious litigant” in numerous district courts.9 A search of his name in the federal judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (“PACER”) on March

19, 2026, produced 1,211 results.

5 See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) (federal district courts must have courts must have personal jurisdiction over the parties); 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a civil action may be brought in a federal district court in which either the defendant resides or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred). 6 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.” Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024); See also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted.). 7 See, e.g., Emrit v. Musk, Case No. 1:25-CV-00008-SNLJ, 2025 WL 2480901, at *1 (E.D. Mo. 2025) (“A search of his name in the federal judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) produces a list of 607 district court cases and 392 appeals.”); Emrit v. Prince George's Cnty. Police Dep't, No. CV 25-249, 2025 WL 2345179, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2025) (recounting “Plaintiff's proclivity for initiating frivolous and vexations litigations on various topics in multiple U.S. District Courts throughout the country”). 8 Docket 6 at 1. See also In re: Ronald Emrit, Case No. 15-80221. 9 See e.g. Presidential Candidate P60005535 v. Burnett et al., 2025 WL 3141495, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2025) (following other courts in finding that Emrit “is a classic example of a litigant who abuses the privilege of proceeding IFP” and characterizing his complaint as “incoherent”). Case No. 3:25-cv-00357-SLG, Emrit v. Kardashian, et al. The Court has dismissed multiple cases filed by Plaintiff as frivolous and has repeatedly informed Mr. Emrit that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants he names and is not the proper venue for his claims.10 However, Plaintiff currently

has three pending cases before the Court.11 In this case, none of the alleged events took place in Alaska, and the only apparent reference to Alaska is Plaintiff’s claim that the “the Creation of Adam painted by Michaelangelo on the Sistine Chapel at Vatican City named after Pope Sixtus IV is inherently connected to the Bering Strait connecting Alaska to Russia.”12 The “Bering Strait Connecting Alaska

and Russia” is not a proper defendant,13 and all of Plaintiff’s claims are frivolous. For these reasons, the Court finds that this case must be dismissed. The Court has previously “cautioned that the continued filing of claims in the District of Alaska that Plaintiff knows, or should know, will be dismissed may result in the entry of a vexatious litigant order by this Court requiring prescreening of

Plaintiff’s filings in this forum.”14 Although the Court declines to enter a vexatious

10 Emrit v. Musk, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00187-SLG, Docket 6 (dismissing the case as frivolous) (D. Alaska 2025); Emrit v. The Grammy Awards on CBS, Case No. 3:24-cv- 00017-SLG, Docket 7 (dismissing the case and frivolous and certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith) (D. Alaska 2025); Emrit v. Trump, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00002-RRB (dismissing the case for failure to state cognizable claims in an appropriate venue). 11 Plaintiff’s claims in Emrit v. Snoop Doggy Dogg, et al., Case 3:26-cv-00007-SLG, and Emrit v. Obama, et al., Case No. 3:26-cv-00110-SLG, will be addressed in due course. 12 Docket 1 at 3. 13 Docket 1 at 1. 14 Emrit v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00187- SLG, Docket 4 at 5. Case No. 3:25-cv-00357-SLG, Emrit v. Kardashian, et al. litigant order at this time, the Court notes that Plaintiff currently has two other cases pending before the Court. The Court has not yet screened or otherwise reviewed the merits of Plaintiff’s claims in those cases. However, based on the identity of

the named defendants and Plaintiff’s prior litigation history, Plaintiff is cautioned that upon screening, the Court will likely impose prefiling restrictions against Plaintiff. If Plaintiff does not wish to proceed under the risk of such restrictions, he may file a notice of voluntary dismissal in each of his two remaining cases. Plaintiff must cease filing of frivolous, duplicative, or otherwise improper actions.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 3. The Court certifies that any appeal from this disposition would not be taken in good faith.15

4. The Clerk of Court shall issue a final judgment and notify the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the entry of this order. 5. With this order, the Clerk shall send Plaintiff two copies of form PS09, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. DATED this 23rd day of March, 2026, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”). Case No. 3:25-cv-00357-SLG, Emrit v. Kardashian, et al.