IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE § NUMBER P60005535 a/k/a RONALD § SATISH EMRIT a/k/a PRESIDENTIAL § COMMITTEE/POLITICAL ACTION § COMMITTEE/SEPARATE § SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER § C00569897 d/b/a UNITED EMRITS OF § AMERICA § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-00255-MJT § INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE § IN HAGUE, NETHERLANDS; the § UNITED NATIONS; the WORLD TRADE § ORGANIZATION; the COUNCIL ON § FOREIGN RELATIONS; the § TRILATERAL COMMISSION; the § UNITED STATES EMBASSY OF § POLAND; and the EMBASSY OF § POLAND IN THE UNITED STATES § § Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. #2) Pursuant to

and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges, the District Court referred this proceeding to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for pretrial management. See

(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-72. On August 18, 2025, Judge Stetson issued a report and recommendation [Dkt. 5] recommending that this court deny Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 2]. For the reasons below, the report and recommendation is adopted. Plaintiff is known as a “serial pro se filer” who “continues to abuse the in forma pauperis privilege by recycling the same patently frivolous allegations . . . in inscrutable pleadings that demonstratively clog the federal district courts with meritless litigation.” Emrit v. CIA et al., No. 3:22-CV-35,

, at *1 n.1 (N.D. W.Va. Apr. 1, 2022) (collecting cases). This court has handled some of his previous claims. See, e.g., Presidential Candidate No. P60005535

v. World Intell. Prop. Org., No. 9:25-CV-114,

(E.D. Tex. June 12, 2025), R. & R. adopted,

(E.D. Tex. July 10, 2025). To prevent abuse of the federal in forma pauperis statute,

, federal courts are authorized “to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis ‘if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious.’” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) (referencing § 1915(d)). Actions are frivolous or malicious if the factual allegations therein are “fanciful,” or describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id. at 328. Here, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff’s “fanciful” complaint described nothing but “delusional scenarios.” [Dkt. 5 at 2 (quoting Neitzke,

)]. She therefore

recommended that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. Judge Stetson further recommended that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the court’s filing fee of $405 within fourteen (14) days of any order denying his pauper status to avoid having this action dismissed for failure to prosecute [Dkt. 5 at 3]. Plaintiff did not file objections, and the Court finds no legal error in Judge Stetson’s Report.1

1 The court notes, as the Magistrate Judge did [Dkt. 5 at 2 n.1], that Plaintiff has filed a notice of interlocutory appeal [Dkt. 4], which generally “strips the district court of jurisdiction” over pending matters. Butler v. Denka Performance Elastomer LLC,

, 275 n.5 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Dunbar,

(5th Cir. 1980)). However, this notice of appeal is “manifestly ineffective” because no orders have been entered in this case, so there is nothing to appeal. United States v. Hitchmon,

(5th Cir. 1979); see also 16A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3949.1 (5th ed. 2025) (explaining the same). The Court agrees with Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation and adopts it in full. In this action, judicial economy is best served by denying Plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion. Dismissing the case outright could lead to wasting court resources if the same frivolous allegations are asserted again, as they have been across the nation. Emrit,

, at *1 n.1. Order Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Dkt. 2] is DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the court’s filing fee of $405 within fourteen (14) days of this order or this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 16th day of September, 2025.

Jechedl 6 Grumerkn Michael J. ‘Truncale United States District Judge