Emrit v. Erin Burnett Outfront of Cable News Network (CNN) Perhaps "Madame President," The Hypothetical Erin Burnett for President 2028 Campaign et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
Presidential Candidate Number P60005535
“also known as” (aka) RONALD SATISH
EMRIT, & Presidential Committee/Political
Action Committee/Separate Segregated Fund
(SSF) Number C00569897 d/b/a United Emrits
of America,
Plaintiff,
- against -
ERIN BURNETT, Outfront of Cable News
Network (CNN) Perhaps “Madame President,”
The Hypothetical Erin Burnett for President
2028 Campaign, et al.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
25-CV-2873 (PKC) (TAM)
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
On November 17, 2025, Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, proceeding pro se, filed this action
against Defendants Erin Burnett; Volodymyr Zelensky; the Estate of Alexei Navalny; the Estate
of Ruth Bader Ginsberg; and others, including individuals residing in Ukraine, Poland, Spain,
Colombia, Panama, the Canary Islands, and Florida. 	(Compl., Dkt. 1, at ECF1 1.) 	The Court
grants Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) for purposes of this decision.
(IFP Mot., Dkt. 2.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Complaint contends that Defendant Burnett made racist comments, defamed
Presidents Trump and Clinton by insinuating that they were on a client list maintained by Jeffrey
1 Citations to “ECF” refer to the pagination generated by the Court’s CM/ECF docketing
system and not the document’s internal pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-02873-PKC-CHK Document 4 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Epstein, and spent too much time covering stories about Alexei Navalny and Volodymyr Zelensky.
(Compl., Dkt. 1, at ECF 10–12.) 	Plaintiff also contends that Burnett made condescending
comments towards the daughter of Steph and Ayesha Curry. (Id. at ECF 9, 13.) Plaintiff seeks an
injunction against CNN preventing it from defaming Donald Trump and requiring it to apologize
for the remarks made about Steph Curry’s daughter. (Id. at ECF 13)
Plaintiff’s Complaint also makes the following allegations: 1) he “wishes that the defendant
Erin Burnett . . . would hurry up and run for president in 2028 so that [he] can get back to his
amazing music career in which he has won awards from American Idol Underground” and others;
2) he has filed lawsuits against Elon Musk and Sean Combs, whom “nobody likes”; 3) his father
won awards from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Rockville, Maryland; 4) he won an
NAACP scholarship; 5) his father played steel pan music for Robert F. Kennedy, the father of the
current Health and Human Services director; 6) “cosmic microwave background radiation was
discovered in 1965”; 7) Plaintiff has been trying to obtain a patent for “three groundbreaking and
novel ideas related to quantum mechanics, astrophysics, special relativity, and general relativity
and to a lesser extent, biomedical engineering and electrical engineering”; 8) electron orbitals are
in the form of an electron wave, and are connected to the “Captain EO” movie at Epcot, which
stars Michael Jackson; 9) a woman named Maria Cherniavska committed intentional infliction of
emotional distress by deactivating her WhatsApp account without informing Plaintiff; and 10) “the
Hooters restaurant in A1A and Las Olas in Fort Lauderdale . . . has something to do with cancer
genes, oncogenes, retroviruses, and doll eyes.” (Id. at ECF 2–10.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint must plead sufficient facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A court may dismiss a pro se action
sua sponte under certain circumstances. 	A court may dismiss an IFP action under 28 U.S.C. §
Case 1:25-cv-02873-PKC-CHK Document 4 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
1915(e)(2)(B) where it is satisfied that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.” An action is “frivolous” when either: (1) “the ‘factual contentions are
clearly baseless,’ such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy”; or (2) “the claim
is ‘based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.’” Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141
F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). 	“An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable
basis in law or fact—i.e., where it is ‘based on an indisputably meritless legal theory’ or presents
‘factual contentions [which] are clearly baseless.’” Scanlon v. Vermont, 423 Fed. Appx. 78, 79
(2d Cir. 2011) (summary order) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (alteration
in original)); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32–33 (1992) (“[A] finding of factual
frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.”).
Separately, a district court may dismiss a pro se complaint sua sponte where it determines that it
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that
it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
At the same time, it is axiomatic that pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards
than pleadings drafted by attorneys, and the Court is required to read the Plaintiff’s pro se
complaint liberally and interpret it as raising the strongest arguments it suggests. 	Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9–10 (1980); McLeod v. Jewish
Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156–57 (2d Cir. 2017). At the pleadings stage of the proceeding,
the Court must assume the truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations” in the
complaint. 	Kiobel 	v. 	Royal 	Dutch 	Petroleum 	Co., 	621 	F.3d 	111, 	124 	(2d 	Cir.
2010) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677 (2009)).
Case 1:25-cv-02873-PKC-CHK Document 4 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
DISCUSSION
The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint for two, independent reasons. First, the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint only alleges tortious conduct by
Defendants, (Compl., Dkt. 1, at ECF 10–12), and therefore does not satisfy the requirements for
federal question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Ordonez v. USAA, No. 11-CV5286 (HB), 2013
WL 837599, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2013) (concluding that, because a plaintiff “brings only state
tort claims and does not bring any cause of action implicating federal law,” the court lacked federal
question jurisdiction). 	Nor does Plaintiff’s Complaint meet the requirements for diversity
jurisdiction, as he admits that he is seeking an amount in controversy of $0. (Compl., Dkt. 1, at
ECF 6–7); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (establishing an amount in controversy requirement of $75,000);
Surgicore of Jersey City v. Anthem Life & Disability Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-3482 (BMC), 2020 WL
32447, at *2 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2020) (determining the court lacked diversity jurisdiction
because the alleged amount in controversy was less than $75,000). Thus, the Court must dismiss
the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Second, and in the alternative, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as frivolous.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 	Although the Court must grant Plaintiff’s complaint the most
liberal interpretation, Plaintiff’s allegations concerning his music career, his father, Hooters, and
electrons are exactly the kinds of delusory allegations courts have refused to entertain. See Soto
v. Tesla Inc., No. 25-CV-1544 (LLS), 2025 WL 1591794, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2025)
(dismissing as frivolous a plaintiff’s allegations that “Elon Musk, Rupert Murdoch, and their
companies have experimented on him, directed others to harass and intimidate him, and sent him
inappropriate videos”); see also Taylor v. Securus Techs., Inc., No. 25-CV-1416, 2025 WL
1181713, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2025) (dismissing the complaint as frivolous in light of the
plaintiff’s allegations that “a group of civilians hacked Securus Technologies’ servers and
Case 1:25-cv-02873-PKC-CHK Document 4 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
exploited the surveillance system, publicly broadcasting Plaintiff’s private experiences on social
media”); Emrit v. Combs, No. 24-CV-0213, 2024 WL 168331, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2024)
(dismissing a plaintiff’s complaint upon finding it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact), appeal
dismissed, No. 24-406, 2024 WL 3858937 (2d Cir. July 26, 2024). The Court thus concludes that
Plaintiff’s allegations are meritless and lack a basis in reality.
Generally, a court should not dismiss a pro se complaint “without . . . granting leave to
amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim
might be stated.” 	Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290, 295 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavis v.
Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010)). But a court has inherent power to dismiss without
leave to amend or replead “where . . . the substance of the claim pleaded is frivolous on its
face,” see Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988), or where amendment would
otherwise be futile, Hill v. Curcione, 657 F. 3d 116, 123–24 (2d Cir. 2011). Because the Court
concludes that granting leave to amend would be futile, the Court declines to do so.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FILING INJUNCTION
In dismissing this action, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Plaintiff has filed
over one thousand cases in the federal courts across the country.2 The Court has previously warned
Plaintiff that “filing of repetitive, vexatious, and frivolous litigation may result in the imposition
of an injunction prohibiting him from making future filings seeking in forma pauperis status
without leave of the Court.” See Emrit v. Musk, No. 25-CV-0060, 2025 WL 307139, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2025); Emrit v. Combs, 2024 WL 168331, at *2. Given Plaintiff’s litigation
history, he is ordered to show cause by written affirmation within 30 days of this Order, why he
2 See PACER, www.pacer.gov (last visited Nov. 18, 2025); see Emrit v. Combs, 2024 WL
168331, at *2 (taking judicial notice of Plaintiff’s “multitude of federal complaints”).
Case 1:25-cv-02873-PKC-CHK Document 4 Filed 11/24/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
should not be barred from filing any future IFP actions in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York without first obtaining permission from the Court to do so. 	If
Plaintiff fails to show cause within 30 days of the entry of this Order or should his affirmation fail
to set forth good cause why an injunction should not be entered, he will be barred from filing any
further IFP actions in this Court without prior Court permission. See Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406
F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (“If a litigant has a history of filing ‘vexatious, harassing or
duplicative lawsuits,’ courts may impose sanctions, including restrictions on future access to the
judicial system.” (citation omitted)); In re Sassower, 20 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir. 1994) (“With respect
to civil litigation, courts have recognized that the normal opportunity to initiate lawsuits may be
limited once a litigant has demonstrated a clear pattern of abusing the litigation process by filing
vexatious and frivolous complaints.”); Emrit v. Musk, 2025 WL 307139, at *2.
Case 1:25-cv-02873-PKC-CHK Document 4 Filed 11/24/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is dismissed as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff is ordered to show cause by written affirmation, within thirty (30) days of
the entry of this Order, why he should not be barred from filing any further IFP actions in this
Court without first obtaining permission from the Court to do so. All further proceedings shall be
stayed until the Plaintiff’s time to file his written affirmation has expired.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies IFP status for the purpose of an appeal. See
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail
a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and note the mailing on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: November 24, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:25-cv-02873-PKC-CHK Document 4 Filed 11/24/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>