Emrit v. Musk
3:25-cv-00007
D. AlaskaApr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and related documents against Elon Musk and others in the District of Alaska.
- Plaintiff sought to have the case construed as a class action and requested its transfer to either the Tenth or Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal, and ultimately for Supreme Court review.
- The court, required to screen IFP complaints under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A, found no connection between the plaintiff, defendants, alleged conduct, and the District of Alaska.
- Emrit is a serial pro se filer with over 500 similar actions nationwide, including multiple identical and duplicative complaints in various federal courts.
- The court noted Plaintiff’s history of vexatious and frivolous filings and dismissed this action with prejudice, denying all pending motions as moot, and certifying that any appeals would not be taken in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction and venue | Case should proceed or be moved to CO/VA | No defense stated (no appearances) | No jurisdiction or venue in Alaska |
| Frivolous or duplicative filing | Case is not frivolous | No defense stated (no appearances) | Filing is frivolous and duplicative |
| Premature appeal | Wants appellate review prior to judgment | No defense stated | Appeal is premature and frivolous |
| Leave to amend complaint | Implied right to amend | No defense stated | Amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (notice of appeal generally divests district court of control over appealed aspects)
- Rodriguez v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2018) (federal court can certify appeals as frivolous and retain jurisdiction)
- Parents for Privacy v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2020) (dismissal without leave to amend when legal theory is defective, not just factual pleading)