Appellate Case: 25-5015 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 25, 2025 _______________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Presidential Candidate Number P60005535,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE/ POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE/SEPARATED SEGREGATED FUND (SSF) NUMBER C00569897, d/b/a United Emrits of America,

Plaintiff, v. No. 25-5015 (D.C. No. 4:25-CV-00016-CVE-MTS) ELON MUSK; VIVEK (N.D. Okla.) RAMASWAMY; MIKE JOHNSON, Speaker of the House; DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY,

Defendants - Appellees. _______________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Appellate Case: 25-5015 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2025 Page: 2

_______________________________________

Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _______________________________________

Mr. Ronald Satish Emrit has sued the Department of Government

Efficiency, Mr. Elon Musk, Mr. Vivek Ramaswamy, and Mr. Mike Johnson,

bringing the action in the Northern District of Oklahoma. 1 The district

court dismissed the action without prejudice for improper venue.

Venue ordinarily exists in a district where

 any defendant resides (if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located),

 a substantial part of the events occurred, or

 a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction if the action couldn’t otherwise be brought elsewhere.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

But Mr. Emrit hasn’t alleged that the Northern District of Oklahoma

was where

 a defendant resided,

 any of the events occurred, or

 a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

1 Mr. Emrit has filed similar complaints in many other courts. See Emrit v. Musk, No. 3:25-cv-00007-RRB, 2025 WL 1105176, at *2 n.17 (D. Alaska Apr. 14, 2025) (listing similar complaints by Mr. Emrit).

2 Appellate Case: 25-5015 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2025 Page: 3

The district court thus concluded that Mr. Emrit had lacked any arguable

basis to assert venue in the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Mr. Emrit insists that the defendants violated his rights, but he

doesn’t identify an arguable basis to sue in the Northern District of

Oklahoma. In the absence of such an argument, we must affirm the

dismissal. See Nixon v. City & Cty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th

Cir. 2015) (stating that the appellant must “explain what was wrong with

the reasoning that the district court relied on in reaching its decision”).

Affirmed.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

3