Ronald Satish Emrit v. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, et al.

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Nov 18, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 RONALD SATISH EMRIT, No. 2:25-CV-00446-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 v. 10 VOLODOMYR ZELENSKYY, et al., 11 Defendants. ECF No. 2 12 13 14 Plaintiff filed a Complaint on November 7, 2025. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also 15 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. A complaint filed 16 by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is 17 subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a complaint that is, among other 18 things, frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 19 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations 20 1 liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the 2 Court concludes Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous.

3 Plaintiff appears to assert defamation claims on behalf of third parties but 4 lacks the standing to do so. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 410-11 (1991) 5 (citations omitted). Plaintiff also maintains that the United States District Court for

6 the District of New Jersey has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. ECF 7 No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff, who has the burden of establishing jurisdiction, see Kokkonen 8 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted), has 9 failed to show why this Court has jurisdiction over this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

10 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action if subject matter jurisdiction is 11 lacking). The Court thus dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1915(e)(2)(B).

13 In light of Plaintiff’s lack of standing to assert these claims and the apparent 14 lack of jurisdiction this Court has over the matter, the Court denies leave to 15 amend. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) 16 (holding that when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the

17 plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure 18 the defect” in the complaint). 19 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

20 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with prejudice. 1 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is 2 DENIED as moot.

3 3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 4 of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any 5 arguable basis in law or fact.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this 7 Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE THE FILE. 8 DATED November 18, 2025.

9 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20