1

2

3

4

5

6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Case No. 20-cv-00062-BAS-LL 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 MOTION TO PROCEED IN NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, FORMA PAUPERIS [ECF No. 2]; 14 WASHINGTON REDSKINS, DANIEL SNYDER, AND 15 Defendants. (2) DISMISSING ACTION WITH 16 PREJUDICE 17 18 On January 8, 2020, Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, proceeding pro se, filed a civil 19 Complaint and moved to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Compl., ECF No. 1; Mot. 20 for IFP, ECF No. 2.) For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion 21 for IFP and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. 22 I. MOTION TO PROCEED IFP 23 Under

, a litigant who because of indigency is unable to pay the 24 required fees or security to commence a legal action may petition the court to proceed 25 without making such payment. See Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office,

890, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (“All persons, not just prisoners, may seek IFP status.”). To satisfy 27 the requirements of

(a), “an affidavit [of poverty] is sufficient which states 28 that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for costs . . . and still be able to 1 provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.”

. At the same time, 2 however, “the same even-handed care must be employed to assure that federal funds are 3 not squandered to underwrite, at public expense . . . the remonstrances of a suitor who is 4 financially able, in whole or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 5

(D.R.I. 1984). District courts, therefore, tend to reject IFP 6 applications where the applicant can pay the filing fee with acceptable sacrifice to other 7 expenses. See, e.g., Stehouwer v. Hennessey,

(N.D. Cal. 1994) 8 (finding no abuse of discretion where court required a partial fee payment from a prisoner 9 who had a $14.61 monthly salary and who received $110 per month from family), vacated 10 in part on other grounds by Olivares v. Marshall,

(9th Cir. 1995). 11 Having read and considered Plaintiff’s application, the Court finds that Plaintiff 12 meets the requirements in

for IFP status. Plaintiff is unemployed and 13 receives $829.00 per month in disability and $121.00 in other unspecified income. (IFP 14 Mot. ¶¶ 1–2, ECF No. 2.) Although his monthly income of $950.00 exceeds his estimated 15 monthly expenses of $635.00, he states that he has a negative balance of $700.00 in two 16 bank accounts and no assets; he states that his two cars were “towed [and] maybe 17 auctioned.” (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5, 8.) Under these circumstances, the Court finds that requiring 18 Plaintiff to pay the court filing fees would impair his ability to obtain the necessities of life. 19 See Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. Thus, his Motion for IFP is granted. 20 II. DISMISSAL OF ACTION 21 Under

(e)(2)(B)(i), courts must dismiss any action, 22 “notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,” if the 23 action is “frivolous or malicious.” A complaint is “frivolous” under this statute if it “merely 24 repeats pending or previously litigated claims.” Dorsey v. Kreep, No. 18-CV-02588-AJB- 25 MSB,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2019) (quoting Cato v. U.S. ,

1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995)). 27 28 1 Upon review of the federal docket, the Court notes that Plaintiff has filed complaints 2 nearly identical to the instant pleading, against the same Defendants, in other districts.1 In 3 these cases, listed below, the courts have acted on Plaintiff’s IFP application, and, in some 4 instances, dismissed his action: 5 • Middle District of Florida (Case No. 5:19-cv-00525-JSM-PRL), appeal 6 dismissed, Emrit v. Nat’l Football League, Case No. 19-14936 (11th Cir. Dec. 10, 7 2019) (denying IFP and dismissing case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) 8 • District of Maryland (Case No. 8:19-cv-02968-PJM), on appeal, Emrit v. Nat’l 9 Football League, Case No. 19-2434 (4th Cir. Dec. 16, 2019) (granting IFP and 10 dismissing case as frivolous) 11 • Southern District of Iowa (Case No. 4:19-cv-00334-CRW-HCA), on appeal, 12 Emrit v. Nat’l Football League, Case No. 19-3705 (8th Cir. Dec. 18, 2019) 13 (denying IFP) 14 • District of Columbia (Case No: 1:10-cv-03086-UNA), on appeal, Emrit v. Nat’l 15 Football League, Case No. 19-7165 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 20, 2019) (granting IFP and 16 dismissing for lack of standing) 17 • Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 1:19-cv-01302-CMH-TCB), on appeal, 18 Emrit v. Nat’l Football League, Case No. 20-1040 (4th Cir. January 14, 2020) 19 (granting IFP) 20 • District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:19-cv-12272-PBS), on appeal, Emrit v. 21 Nat’l Football League, Case No. 20-1079 (1st Cir. Jan. 24, 2020) (dismissing 22 action without prejudice and denying IFP as moot) 23 In addition, Plaintiff previously filed three identical complaints—stating the same 24 1 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket, accessed online via the PACER Case Locator at 25 https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/index.jsf. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,

, 746 26 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record”); Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc.,

, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002) (a court “may take notice of proceedings 27 in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”). The Court’s searched the docket using Plaintiff’s full name and accessed 28 1 || allegations against the same Defendants—that are pending before other district courts: 2 e District of Hawaii (Case No. 1:20-cv-00008-LEK-WRP) (filed January 6, 2020) 3 e District of Oregon (Case No. 6:20-cv-00024-MK) (filed January 6, 2020) 4 e District of Alaska (Case No. 5:20-cv-00001-SLG) (filed January 7, 2020) 5 In light of the fact that all allegations in Plaintiff's instant Complaint have beer 6 || previously litigated or are already pending before other courts, the Court dismisses this 7 || action with prejudice. See Cato, 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2 (finding that the district court had “ar 8 ||independent ground for dismissal” of a complaint where the plaintiffs previously filec 9 ||complaints with the same allegations that were dismissed by different judges under □□□□□ 10 1915(d)); see also Emrit v. Universal Music Grp., Case No. 3:19-cv-05984-BHS, 201° 11 || WL 6251365, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 4, 2019) (‘Under the [first-to-file] rule, when cases 12 ||involving the same parties and issues have been filed in two different districts, the seconc 13 || district court has discretion to transfer, stay, or dismiss the second case in the interest □□ 14 || efficiency and judicial economy.’”’) (quoting Cedars—Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3c 15 769 (9th Cir. 1997)).? 16 || TI. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 17 For the reasons explained, the Court: 18 (1) GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 2); 19 (2) DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this civil action; 20 (3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would be frivolous anc 21 || therefore would not be taken in good faith pursuant to

(a)(3); and 22 (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close the file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 /\ yy 25 DATED: February 10, 2020 ( yi A A (pha 6 26 United States District Judge 27 Court further notes, as did the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, that this action should 28 |] Nat'l Football League, Case No. I:19.<¥-12272-PBS Mass Dec. 6.2019. _A-