NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 23-1275 __________

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Appellant

v.

CHARLES BARKLEY; SUBWAY; FANDUEL ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-23-cv-00079) District Judge: Honorable Robert D. Mariani ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 26, 2023 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 8, 2023) ___________

OPINION* ___________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Ronald Emrit appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his

complaint without leave to amend. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Emrit has filed over 500 lawsuits throughout the country. See Emrit v. Special

Agent, No. 1:22CV282-AW-HTC,

, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2022).

At issue here is Emrit’s pro se complaint lodged against former NBA basketball player

Charles Barkley, the fast-food chain Subway, and Fanduel, an online sports betting

company. Emrit alleged that, while using his e-mail account, he frequently sees “vertical

banner advertisements featuring Charles Barkley for either a sporting goods store,

Fanduel or Subway,” which “interfere[d] with [his] concentration . . . while . . . using his

[email] account in the ordinary course of business.” ECF No. 1 at 4-5. He also claimed

that, because he has previously sued the CIA, the “CIA utilizes advertisements of Charles

Barkley, Subway, Fan Duel, and sporting goods to annoy or harass” him. Id. at 5. Emrit

requested $45 million in damages. Id. at 9.

The Magistrate Judge screened the complaint under

(e)(2)(B),

and recommended dismissing the complaint because Emrit had failed to state a short and

plain statement for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and because venue in

the Middle District of Pennsylvania was improper.1 The District Court adopted that

recommendation and dismissed the complaint without extending leave to amend the

complaint. Emrit timely appealed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to

. We exercise plenary review of

the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint under § 1915(e), see Dooley v. Wetzel,

(3d Cir. 2020), and we may affirm a district court’s ruling on any basis

1 Emrit resides in Florida. Additionally, in his complaint, he indicated that venue was likely proper in Alabama because Barkley attended college there. ECF No. 1 at 3. supported by the record. See Murray v. Bledsoe,

(3d Cir. 2011) (per

curiam).

We will affirm the dismissal because Emrit’s complaint is frivolous. See

§ 1915(e)(2)(B). His allegations that the CIA is publishing advertisements involving

Charles Barkley to harass him are baseless and fantastical. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989) (a complaint is frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

fact,” which “embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful

factual allegation”); Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (a complaint’s

factual allegations are “clearly baseless” if they are “fanciful, fantastic, [or] delusional”

(citations omitted)). Furthermore, Emrit’s vague references to various federal statutes do

not establish a legal basis for relief.2

Under these circumstances, the District Court also did not err in denying Emrit’s

complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp.,

(3d Cir. 2002). Emrit’s appellate

brief tends only to confirm this point. There, he renewed the allegations in his complaint

and argued that the advertisements provided a way for technology companies to “engage

in a form of mind control to turn humans into artificial intelligence.” C.A. No. 4 at 5.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

2 Emrit filed similar complaints in other Courts, which have also dismissed the complaint as frivolous. See Emrit v. Barkley, No. 2:23-CV-00019-RDP,

, at *3 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 23, 2023); Emrit v. Barkley, No. CV 1:23-00003-KD-B,

, at *1 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 3, 2023); W.D. Pa. Civ. No. 2:23-cv-00034, ECF No. 2 at 6-7.