1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Case No.: 20cv266-JAH-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. 1. GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 14 SECRETARY BETSY DEVOS et al, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 15 Defendant. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [Doc. No. 2]; AND 16

17 2. DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO 1915(e)(2) 18

19 On February 10, 2020, Ronald Satish Emrit (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a 20 complaint along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), pursuant to 21

(a). See Doc. No. 2. After a careful review of the record and for the reasons 22 set forth below, the Court (1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP, [Doc. 23 No. 2]; and (2) DISMISSES the complaint, [Doc. No. 1] without leave to amend. 24 I. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion 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 $400. See

(a). The action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 28 1 prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes,

(9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 3 Cook,

(9th Cir. 1999). Courts grant leave to proceed IFP when 4 plaintiffs submit an affidavit, including a statement of all of their assets, showing the 5 inability to pay the statutory filing fee. See

(a). 6 In support of his IFP motion, Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in this 7 Court without paying fees or costs. See Doc. No. 2. The application indicates Plaintiff is 8 unemployed and receives $750.00 per month in disability benefits during the twelve 9 months prior to filing his complaint.

. Plaintiff has three checking accounts, two 10 with a combined balance of $42.52, and the other with a balance of $-600.00.

Plaintiff 11 also has $42 in cash.

Additionally, Plaintiff receives $121.00 monthly from an 12 undisclosed source, but no income from real property, investments, retirement accounts, 13 gifts, or alimony.

. Plaintiff has no dependents and anticipates no major changes 14 to his income over the next twelve months.

. In contrast, Plaintiff claims monthly 15 expenses in the total amount of $460.00. 16 In accordance with the information presented, the Court finds the Plaintiff 17 adequately demonstrates his inability to pay the Court filing fee required to proceed with 18 the instant action. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed IFP. 19 II. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to

(e)(2)(B) 20 1. Standard of Review 21 Notwithstanding payment of any filing fee or portion thereof, a complaint filed by 22 any person proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to

(a) is subject to a 23 mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the court to the extent it is “frivolous, 24 malicious, fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek[s] monetary 25 relief from a defendant immune from such relief.”

(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. 26 Stahl,

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of

(e)(2)(B) 27 are not limited to prisoners.”). Congress enacted this safeguard because “a litigant whose 28 filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an 1 economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” 2 Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams,

, 3 324 (1989)); Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[S]ection 4 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis 5 complaint that fails to state a claim.”). 6 B. Analysis 7 Since at least 2013, Emrit has been a serial filer of frivolous actions in federal courts 8 throughout the United States. See, e.g., Emrit v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation,

731171 *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2020) (discussing Emrit’s litigation history); Emrit v. 10 Universal Music Group, ,

, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov 4, 2019), report and 11 recommendation adopted,

(W.D. Wash. Nov. 22, 2019) (same); Emrit 12 v. Nat’l Acad. of Recording Arts and Scis,

, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 13 2015) (same).1 In fact, “over two hundred civil cases and appeals in the federal court system 14 have been filed under [Emrit’s] name, and he has been barred from filing suits without 15 leave of court in [several] federal district courts.” Emrit v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 16

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2020) (internal quotation omitted). 17 Emrit now attempts to bring suit in this Court against Defendants Betsy DeVos, 18 United States Department of Education, Default Resolution Group, Nelnet, and Action 19 Financial Services, LLC. However, he has also filed identical actions in at least ten other 20 federal district courts throughout the United States. See Emrit v. DeVos,

, 21 at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 20, 2020) (collecting cases). Although Emrit’s complaint could be 22 transferred based on improper venue because his allegations do not appear to be connected 23 to the Southern District of California, “the better course of action [is] to dismiss the case 24

25 26 1 The Texas district court documented cases filed by Emrit since March 2013, along with the results of those actions – each of the forty-seven cases referenced in the chart was dismissed. Since then, Emrit 27 has only continued to clog the federal district courts and appellate courts with meritless and frivolous litigation. A PACER search as of the date of this Order reflects that, including the instant case, Emrit has 28 1 || at the outset rather than burden another court with a facially frivolous suit.” See id; Emrit 2 ||v. Devos, No. 8:20-cv-773-T-60TGW, Doc. No. 10, at 2, Emrit v. Devos,

|| 1279205, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2020), report and recommendation adopted,

|| 1272606 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2020). 5 Construing Emrit’s claims liberally, he alleges that “as a result of his student loans 6 || being placed in default, his disability checks are being improperly garnished at a rate of 7 115%.” See Emrit,

, at *1. However, as other courts have determined, 8 of his claims is “conclusory and patently frivolous” and he fails to draw any 9 || connection between his legal claims and the factual allegations of his complaint. See

10 at *2. Other courts — evaluating the exact same pleading Emrit has filed here — have 11 concluded that “because Emrit’s allegations are conclusory and lack an arguable basis in 12 || law and fact, his complaint will be dismissed as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B).” See id; 13 || see also Emrit,

, at *1-2. Accordingly the Complaint is DISMISSED 14 || without leave to amend. Amendment under the circumstances of this case would be 15 || futile. 16 Conclusion and Order 17 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP, pursuant to

(a) [Doc. No. 2] 19 is GRANTED; 20 2. The Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 21 3. The Court certifies that an IFP appeal from this order would be frivolous and 22 therefore would not be taken in good faith pursuant to

(a)(3), 23 and therefore may not be taken in forma pauperis. 24 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 || DATED: March 10, 2021 27 JOHN A. HOUSTON 28 /UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE