Emrit v. Burnett et al

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
Ronald Satish Emrit,
Plaintiff,
v.
Erin Burnett, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 2:25-cv-01024-AMA-DBP
District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen
Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to a 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) referral from
District Judge Ann Marie Allen.1 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Ronal Satish Emrit’s
complaint against a wide array of Defendants including Volodomyr Zelenskyy the President of
Ukraine, Darnya Ignateva and Kateryna Olokoba also of Ukraine, the International Court of
Justice of the Hague in the Netherlands, the estates of a few different individuals, some
Defendants from Spain, and Ana Gomez from Columbia. Emrit was granted leave under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 while the court screened his pleading.2 In that order, the court found Emrit’s
Complaint frivolous and that it failed to state a claim for relief.3 Emrit was ordered to file an
amended complaint addressing the deficiencies on or before December 5, 2025. To date, Emrit
has failed to comply with the court’s order. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and recommends that the case be dismissed.
1 ECF No. 6, Notice of Non-Consent, Order referring case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
2 Order Temporarily Granting Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5.
3 Id. at 5.
Case 2:25-cv-01024-AMA Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 7

2
BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Ronald Emrti brings this matter against fifteen Defendants seeking “0
dollars and only looking for the equitable remedy of an injunction and/or declaratory
judgment.”4 	Plaintiff asserts certain “dignitary torts of defamation and false light” were
committed by President Donald Trump and William Jefferson Clinton by publishing false,
libelous, and slanderous material about Mr. Clinton and Mr. Trump as being friends and
“perhaps” business partners or clients of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislain Maxwell.
After raising these initial allegations, Plaintiff’s Complaint goes on to provide
information about Aaron Burr who was vice president to Thomas Jefferson, requesting Erin
Burnett of CNN “hurry up and run for president in 2028” so Plaintiff can get back to an
“amazing music career”, notes another lawsuit Plaintiff filed against Elon Musk and Sean
Combs, that Plaintiff’s father played “steel pan music” for Robert F. Kennedy, and sets forth the
four forces that arose after the big bang, to wit, “gravitational, strong (fusion), weak (fission),
and electromagnetic force.”5 As to jurisdiction, Plaintiff avers jurisdiction is proper under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 for complete diversity, on the basis of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and a federal question is presented.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
1. 	Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
Under the in forma pauperis statute, the court shall, at any time, dismiss a case if it
determines that the action is: “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
4 Complaint at 1.
5 Id. at 5.
Case 2:25-cv-01024-AMA Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 7

3
such relief.”6 The statute “is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial
and private resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate
because of the costs of bringing suit and because of the threat of sanctions for bringing vexatious
suits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.”7 To help facilitate that objective, the in forma
pauperis statute provides the court with power to not only dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, “but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.”8
When determining whether to dismiss a case under §1915, the court employs the same
standard used to analyze motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12.9
Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 is incorporated into the court’s analysis.10
To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege “enough facts to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”11 The court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true
and views the allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, drawing all reasonable
6 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii).
7 Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1216 (10 th Cir. 2006) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct.
1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989)).
8 Id.
9 Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10 th Cir. 2007) (“We apply the same standard of review for dismissal under
§1914(e)(2)(B)(ii) that we employe for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
10 See United States ex rel. Lemmon v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 614 F.3d 1163, 1171 (10 th Cir. 2010) (“Rule 8(a)’s
mandate, that plaintiffs provide a ‘short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief,’ has been incorporated into both the 9(b) and 12(b)(6) inquiries”) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)).
11 Hogan v. Winder, 762 F.3d 1096, 1104 (10 th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547,
127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)).
Case 2:25-cv-01024-AMA Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 7

4
inferences in the Plaintiffs’ favor.12 A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted if it does not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.’”13 The Supreme Court has explained that “[a] claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”14 To properly state a claim for
relief in federal court, Plaintiff must craft a pleading that clearly states “what each defendant did
to [Plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant’s action harmed [Plaintiff]; and, what
specific legal right the [P]laintiff believes the defendant violated.”15
Additionally, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to
contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,”16
and further provides that “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”17 “A pleading
that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s] devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement’”18 “Rule 8 serves the important purpose of requiring plaintiffs to state their
12 Wilson v. Montano, 715 F.3d 847, 852 (10 th Cir. 2013).
13 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929) (2007)).
14 Id.
15 Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10 th Cir. 2007); see also Stone v. Albert, 338 F.
App’x 757, 759 (10 th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (emphasis in original) (quoting Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242,
1250 (10 th Cir. 2008) (“To state a claim, a complaint must ‘make clear exactly who is alleged to have done what to
whom.’”) (emphasis in original)).
16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).
18 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662 (quoting Twombly, 559 U.S. at 555, 557 ) (alteration in original).
Case 2:25-cv-01024-AMA Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 7

5
claims intelligibly so as to inform the defendants of the legal claims being asserted.”19 The
complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.”20
2. 	Pro Se Litigant
As a pro se litigant, the court construes Plaintiff’s complaint liberally and holds
Plaintiff’s pleadings to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.21 Yet
even under a liberal review, Plaintiff is not excused from compliance with federal pleading
requirements or from stating a claim for which relief may be granted.22 For example, pro se
plaintiffs still have “the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim
could be based.”23 Further, it “is not the proper function of the Court to assume the role of
advocate for a pro se litigant,”24 and the court should not “supply additional facts, [or] construct
a legal theory . . . that assumes facts that have not been pleaded.”25
DISCUSSION
Even under the broad pleading standard given to pro se litigants, Plaintiff’s Complaint is
frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief. The IFP Statute permits the court to dismiss a
plaintiff’s complaint if its allegations are frivolous.26 As to frivolousness under the IFP Statute,
19 Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007).
20 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
21 See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
22 Id. at 1009; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
23 Jenkins v. Currier, 514 F.3d 1030, 1032 (10 th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
24 Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
25 Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10 th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1059, 107 L. Ed. 2d. 954, 110 S. Ct.
871 (1990).
26 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (providing that under the IFP Statute, the court is required to “dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous”).
Case 2:25-cv-01024-AMA Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 7

6
the United States Supreme Court has stated that “a complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact [The IFP Statute]’s term ‘frivolous,’ when applied to a
complaint, embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual
allegation.”27 The Supreme Court has noted that the IFP Statute
accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the
veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose
factual contentions are clearly baseless. Examples of the former class are
claims against which it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit ...
and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist …
Examples of the latter class are claims describing fantastic or delusional
scenarios.28
The Complaint here is nonsensical in nature and lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact.
Further, Plaintiff has failed to amend the Complaint as ordered to do so. Accordingly, the
undersigned recommends Emrit’s Complaint be dismissed.29
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, and in the court’s prior order temporarily granting
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion, and based upon Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended
complaint as ordered, the court
1. 	Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
27 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989).
28 Id. at 327-28.
29 A review of the court’s dockets reveals that Mr. Emrit has filed eight cases in this district including the current
one. See Emrit v. PCM Venture 1 et al., 2:15-cv-266 DN; Emrit v. Montevista Mental Hospital, 2:18-cv-883 BSJ;
Emrit v. Apple Grove Foster Care Agency, 2:18-cv-901 CW; Emrit v. The Grammys Awards on CBS, 2:24-cv-22
DAK; Emrit v. Musk et al., 2:25-cv-25 RJS; Emrit v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al., 2:25-cv-723
DBB; Emrit v. Snoop Doggy Dogg et al., 2:26-cv-12 DBP. The majority of these cases have been dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction. An order in one of the cases noted that despite Mr. Emrit being notified of certain requirement, he
“continues to disregard these requirements by improperly filing” suits in this District. Emrit v. The Grammys
Awards on CBS, 2:24-cv-22 DAK, ECF No. 8 at 3. Given the number of cases and Mr. Emrit’s filings, the court
warns Mr. Emrit that continuing his current course of filing frivolous matters will result in recommending that he be
placed on the court’s restricted filing list.
Case 2:25-cv-01024-AMA Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 7

7
2. 	RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s case be Dismissed for being frivolous and failing to
state a claim.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Copies of this Report and Recommendation are being sent to all parties, who are hereby
notified of their right to object.30 The parties must file any objection to this Report and
Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service. “[A] party’s objections to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de
novo review by the district court of for appellate review.”31 Failure to object may constitute a
waiver of the objections upon subsequent review.
DATED this 7 January 2026.
Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge
30 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
31 United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop. Known As 2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Okla., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060
(10th Cir. 1996).
Case 2:25-cv-01024-AMA Document 13 Filed 01/07/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 7
of 7