Ronald Satish Emrit v. Barack Obama, et al.

1 EASTERUN. SD.I SDTIRSITCRTI COTF CWOAUSRHTI NGTON Apr 15, 2026 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON RONALD SATISH EMRIT, No. 2:26-CV-00168-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 v. BARACK OBAMA, et al., 11 Defendants.

14 Plaintiff filed a Complaint on April 14, 2026. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. A complaint filed by any party that seeks to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is subject to screening, and the Court must dismiss a complaint that is, among other things, frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

1 Having reviewed Plaintiff’s allegations liberally, see Capp v. Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court concludes Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (noting a complaint is factually frivolous “when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989) (noting a complaint is frivolous if its factual allegations are “clearly baseless,” “fantastic,” or “delusional”); Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 8 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that a plaintiff “may cross the line into frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false”).

10 The Court thus dismisses this action with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 11 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further denies leave to amend. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s complaint, it must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint).

15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 16 1. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

18 2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is 19 DENIED as moot.

1 3. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal 2 of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any 3 arguable basis in law or fact.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, enter judgment, provide a copy to Plaintiff, and CLOSE THE FILE.

6 DATED April 15, 2026.

7 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE