Ronald Satish Emrit, PLAINTIFF(S) v. The Grammys Awards, DEFENDANT(S)
CASE NUMBER 2:23-cv-09136-PA-E
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 01, 2023
JS-6
The Court has reviewed the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the “Request“) and the documents submitted with it. On the question of indigency, the Court finds that the party who filed the Request:
- is not able to pay the filing fees.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
- As explained in the attached statement, the Request is DENIED because:
- The action is frivolous or malicious.
- The action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
As explained in the attached statement, because it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
United States District Judge
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a racist organization that has given awards to several “sick” people, that Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff‘s membership in 2010, and that Plaintiff was not allowed to rejoin the organization and attend a show despite having a Ukrainian fiancee and being a Presidential candidate in 2016 and 2020. (ECF No. 1 at 2-5.) As the basis for federal-question jurisdiction, Plaintiff cites the
The Court has reviewed the Complaint for whether it is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
First, the action is frivolous because this Court dismissed a prior action by Plaintiff raising these same allegations, in Case No. 2:23-cv-08593-PA-E. Moreover, at least other three district courts have dismissed complaints without leave to amend in which Plaintiff raised these same allegations. See Emrit v. Grammy Awards on CBS, 2023 WL 6847698, at *3-*4 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2023); Emrit v. The Grammy Awards on CBS, 2023 WL 6577793, at *3-*4 (N.D. N.Y. Oct. 6, 2023); Emrit v. Grammy Awards on CBS, 2023 WL 6545417, at *2-*3 (E.D. N.C. Sept. 15, 2023). Dismissal is warranted for this reason alone. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that previous dismissals of the same allegations by different judges was an independent ground for dismissal of the latest complaint);
Second, the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted because it fails to state a right of action under federal law. Parra v. PacifiCare of Arizona, Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2013). As other district courts have repeatedly explained, Plaintiff has failed to allege any cognizable federal claim of discrimination merely because he was not allowed to rejoin the organization and attend a show. See Emrit, 2023 WL 6847698, at *3; Emrit, 2023 WL 6577793, at *3-*4. Thus, the Complaint also fails to state a claim.
Finally, leave to amend is not warranted. “When a case may be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Moreover, “Plaintiff[‘s] legal theories fail. . . . Further amendment would simply be a futile exercise.” Parents for Privacy v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1210, 1239 (9th Cir. 2020). Because amendment would be futile, the Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend, and the action is dismissed with prejudice.