Ronald Satish Emrit v. Snoop Doggy Dogg; et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Case No.: 26-cv-0464-BJC-VET 14 Plaintiff, ORDER:

15 v. (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO 16 SNOOP DOGGY DOGG; et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAPUERIS; AND 17 Defendants.

18 (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 19

20 On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, proceeding pro se, filed a 21 Complaint along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. 22 For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s IFP Motion and DISMISSES 23 the Complaint without prejudice. 24 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 25 All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 26 United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 27 $402.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Civ.L.R. 4.5. A court may authorize the 28 1 commencement of a suit without prepayment of fees if the plaintiff submits an affidavit, 2 including a statement of all their assets, showing that they are unable to pay the fees. See 3 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 4 Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in district court without paying the 5 filing fee. ECF No. 2. The application reflects that Plaintiff’s sole source of income is 6 disability benefits in the amount of $1,036 per month. Id. at 2. Plaintiff further reports 7 maintaining $357 in a checking account and no additional assets. Id. at 3. His total monthly 8 expenses are listed as $790. Id. at 4–5. In light of Plaintiff’s limited income and modest 9 financial resources, the Court finds that he lacks sufficient funds to pay the filing fee while 10 still “afford[ing] the necessities of life. See Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 11 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is 13 SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 14 The Court must screen every civil action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 15 and dismiss any case it finds “frivolous or malicious,” “fails to state a claim on which relief 16 may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from relief.” 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) 18 (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoner”); Lopez v. 19 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 20 “not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint 21 that fails to state a claim”). 22 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 23 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). To proceed with an action in federal court, a plaintiff 24 must establish that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. There are two types of subject 25 matter jurisdiction – federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Tesla Motors, 26 Inc. v. Balan, 134 F.4th 558, 560 (9th Cir. 2025). 27 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires a complaint to “contain: (1) a short and 28 plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and plain statement 1 of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally. See Bernhardt 3 v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 4 520 (1972) (per curiam) (noting that courts hold pro se complaints to “less stringent 5 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”). However, “a liberal interpretation 6 of a [pro se] complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially 7 pled.” See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). 8 To the extent Plaintiff is asserting claims under federal law, he must plead a 9 colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States to invoke 10 federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 11 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is 12 governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” which provides that federal jurisdiction 13 exists only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint. City 14 of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2020). 15 In his first claim, Plaintiff alleges a public nuisance claim against Defendant Snoop 16 Doggy Dogg because “he is a marijuana smoker and former gangster rapper.” ECF No. 1 17 at 12. In his second claim, Plaintiff argues that “industrial espionage should include ideas 18 such as excessive advertising, subliminal messaging, and spying on consumers with 19 artificial intelligence.” Id. Plaintiff’s third count alleges intentional inflection of emotional 20 distress by Defendants NBC, Comcast, Peacock, and NBC Universal because the networks 21 “constantly promote [Snoop Dogg] a marijuana smoker and former gangster rapper as 22 being some type of an historical figure on the level of Martin Luther King, Junior.” Id. at 23 13. Finally, in his fourth claim, Plaintiff alleges that “the promotion of marijauan [sic] 24 smokers and former gangster rappers such as Snoop Doggy Dogg interferes with the 25 careers of other African-Americans who do not want marijuana smokers or gangster 26 rappers like Snoop Doggy Dogg, Dr. Dre, or Kendrick Lamar being treated by NBC like 27 the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior or Thurgood Marshall.” Id. 28 As currently pled, the Complaint fails to assert a colorable claim “arising under” the 1 Constitution or laws of the United States to invoke federal question jurisdiction pursuant 2 ||to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. at 513. For the foregoing 3 ||reasons, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, and the 4 || Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 6 Dated: May 4, 2026 7 Degen Oh feo 9 10 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26-cv-0464-BJC-VET