Emrit v. Snoop Doggy Dogg

Appellate Case: 26-1037 Document: 11 Date Filed: 04/08/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 8, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Former Client of Paul Gardner, Esquire of Gardner Law Group of Baltimore, Maryland as Entertainment Attorney for Outkast, Mya, Mos Def, Tommy Davidson and Salahis, Plaintiff - Appellant, and SATISH DAT BEAST, Former Client of Larry Birkhead Attorney Nancy Hass of Hallandale Beach Florida as Family Law Attorney; GO GO SATISH, Former Client of Thomas Hart, Esquire of On The Potomac of Washington, DC and Holand & Knight, LLP and Entertainment Attorney for Gloria Estefan and James Todd Smith also Known as LL Cool J, Plaintiffs, v. No. 26-1037 (D.C. No. 1:26-CV-00053-RTG) SNOOP DOGGY DOGG, Marijuana (D. Colo.) Smoker named Calvin Broadus; SNOOP DOGGY DOGG BOWL IN ARIZONA; THE RACIST STATE OF ARIZONA, The Only State Which Did not Approve of the Holiday for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior; NBC; COMCAST; NBC UNIVERSAL; VIVENDI UNIVERSAL; PEACOCK; UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE, USOC; MIKE TIRICO; CRIS COLLINSWORTH; SUNDAY NIGHT Appellate Case: 26-1037 Document: 11 Date Filed: 04/08/2026 Page: 2

FOOTBALL; ROGER GOODELL; NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; KENDRICK LAMAR; JAY-Z; DR. DRE; ICE CUBE; ESTATE OF EAZY E ERIC WRIGHT, Former HIV/AIDS patient; SUPER BOWL HALFTIME SHOW; BAD BUNNY, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”). 1 Because he failed to explain why the district court erred, we affirm. 2 Mr. Emrit filed a pro se complaint against several defendants and raising various allegations, including that the rapper Snoop Dogg is “what is wrong with

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Because Mr. Emrit appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).

An order denying leave to proceed ifp is immediately appealable. Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1310-11 (10th Cir. 2005).

Appellate Case: 26-1037 Document: 11 Date Filed: 04/08/2026 Page: 3

Cable Television and Network Television in addition to the National Football League.” ROA, Vol. I at 13. His complaint asked for, among other relief, $45 million in damages and an injunction mandating that “Arizona rename the Snoop Doggy Dogg Bowl to the Martin Luther King, Junior Bowl.” Id. at 18.

Mr. Emrit also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form). The district court denied the motion and directed him to pay all filing fees to move forward with his claim.

Mr. Emrit appeals the district court’s order denying him leave to proceed ifp.

His appellate brief, however, does not address the denial of ifp status. It instead discusses the merits of the underlying district court action. Aplt. Br. at 2-4.

“The first task of an appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.” Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015). Mr. Emrit has failed to do so here.

Because Mr. Emrit does not present any arguments as to why the district court erred, we AFFIRM the denial of ifp status in district court and DENY his motion to proceed ifp in this appeal.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge