Emrit v. Cherniavska et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff,
- v - 	1:26-CV-34
(MAD/DJS)
MARIA CHERNIAVSKA, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Bowie, Maryland 20790
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
The Clerk has forwarded for review a civil Complaint filed by Plaintiff. 	The
Complaint was filed on January 6, 2026. Dkt. No. 1, Compl. The filing fee in this action
has not been paid, but Plaintiff has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No.
2. That Motion has been granted. The matter has been referred to the undersigned for an
initial review pursuant to L.R. 72.3.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT
The 	Complaint 	identifies 	the 	following 	Defendants: 	Maria 	Cherniavska 	of
Warsaw, Poland (Future First Lady of United States by 2028 in a Parallel Universe);
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 10

- 2 -
Volodymyr Zelenskyy, President of Ukraine; Estate of Alexei Navalny; Darya Ignateva
of Kyiv, Ukraine; Kateryna Olokoba of Kherson, Ukraine; Erin Burnett, Outfront of
Cable 	News 	Network 	(CNN); 	the 	International 	Court 	of 	Justice 	of 	the 	Hague,
Netherlands; the United Nations; the World Bank; the International Monetary Fund; and
the Council on Foreign Relations. 	Compl. at ¶¶ 11-22. 	There are limited factual
allegations with respect to interactions between Plaintiff and Defendants Cherniavska and
Ignateva on what appear to be dating websites. 	Id. at ¶¶ 30-33. 	Defendant Burnett is
named in several causes of action. Id. at ¶¶ 37-46. The vast majority of the Defendants,
however, have no factual allegations or legal claims related to them asserted in the
Complaint. See generally id. Many of the specific factual allegations made are unclear
and do not appear to have any connection to either the Defendants or stated causes of
action.
The Complaint asserts three causes of action. 	The first alleges that Defendant
Burnett has defamed Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. 	Compl. at ¶¶ 37-42.
The second makes related claims and purports to assert an invasion of privacy claim. Id.
at ¶¶ 43-45. 	The final cause of action also names Burnett and Presidents Clinton and
Trump and alleges intentional of infliction of emotional distress by Burnett. Id. at ¶¶ 46-
48. 	This cause of action also alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress against
Cherniavska for deleting her Whatsapp account without informing Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 49.
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 10

- 3 -
II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) directs that, when a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis, “(2) . . . the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that
– . . . (B) 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).1
In reviewing a pro se complaint, the court has a duty to show liberality toward pro
se litigants, see Nance v. Kelly, 912 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1990) (per curiam), and should
exercise “extreme caution . . . in ordering sua sponte dismissal of a pro se complaint
before the adverse party has been served and both parties (but particularly the plaintiff)
have had an opportunity to respond.” Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 41 (2d Cir.
1983). 	Therefore, a court should not dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff has stated
“enough 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 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.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
1 To determine whether an action is frivolous, a court must look to see whether the complaint “lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 10

- 4 -
Although a court should construe the factual allegations in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained
in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” 	Id. 	“Threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Id. (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts
do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the
complaint has alleged - but it has not show[n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id.
at 679 (quoting FED . R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2)). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
“demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Thus, 	a 	pleading 	that 	only 	“tenders 	naked 	assertions 	devoid 	of 	further 	factual
enhancement” will not suffice. Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Lack of Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. 	Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v.
Jackson, 587 U.S. 435, 437 (2019). “[I]t is well settled that a federal court, whether trial
or appellate, is obligated to notice on its own motion the basis for its jurisdiction.”
Gronowicz v. Coll. of Staten Island, 359 F. Supp. 2d 243, 247 (N.D.N.Y. 2005). Federal
court jurisdiction exists either when the matter presents a federal question or where there
is diversity of citizenship. 	Home Depot U. S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 587 U.S. at 437; 28
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 4 of 10

- 5 -
U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1332. Having reviewed the Complaint, the Court recommends that it
be dismissed without prejudice based on lack of jurisdiction.
“In order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s claims must arise
‘under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.’” 	Gray v. Internal Affs.
Bureau, 292 F. Supp. 2d 475, 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1331). None of
the stated causes of action satisfy that requirement.2
“Diversity jurisdiction exists where the parties are citizens of different states and
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, 772 F. Supp. 2d 453,
455 (W.D.N.Y. 2011). Here, diversity is lacking. First, the Complaint specifically states
that “plaintiff is not . . . seeking punitive, compensatory, and treble damages.” Compl. at
p. 10. There is no amount of monetary damage sought here. Instead, Plaintiff seeks only
undefined declaratory and injunctive relief. 	Id. 	On these facts, Plaintiff has failed to
properly allege the amount on controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction and
dismissal is appropriate. 	Presidential Candidate No. P60005535 v. Burnett, 2025 WL
3268247, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2025).3
2 Plaintiff does not contend otherwise and contends that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the diversity
statute. Compl. at ¶ 25.
3 Dismissal is also available on several alternative grounds discussed below.
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 5 of 10

- 6 -
B. Rule 8
Plaintiff has submitted “a completely incomprehensible complaint” which is
subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Blanco v. Judgment Debtor,
2016 WL 10570942, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2016).4
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a pleading must
contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . .
. ;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the
alternative or different types of relief.
F ED . R. CIV . P. 8(a). Rule 8 serves “to give fair notice of the claim being asserted so as
to permit the adverse party the opportunity to file a responsive answer [and] prepare an
adequate defense.” Powell v. Marine Midland Bank, 162 F.R.D. 15, 16 (N.D.N.Y. 1995)
(citation omitted). 	A complaint that fails to comply with basic pleading requirements
presents too heavy a burden for defendants to craft a defense “and provides no meaningful
basis for the Court to assess the sufficiency of [the plaintiff’s] claims,” and may properly
be dismissed. 	Gonzales v. Wing, 167 F.R.D. 352, 355 (N.D.N.Y. 1996). The nature of
Plaintiff’s Complaint makes it clear that it fails to meet these requirements or provide the
4 There is no apparent connection between the facts alleged in the Complaint and the Northern District of New York
which would make this Court a proper venue for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). While a court may transfer
venue to an appropriate district “where it might have been brought,” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), it is not clear from the
pleadings what venue might be appropriate.
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 6 of 10

- 7 -
notice to Defendants that Rule 8 requires. As recounted above, it offers limited specific
factual pleading. This alone is sufficient basis for dismissal of the action.
C. Article III Standing
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to
Cases and Controversies. For a legal dispute to qualify as a genuine case
or controversy, at least one plaintiff must have standing to sue. To establish
Article III standing, a plaintiff must allege an injury that is concrete,
particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged
action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.
B.B. by Rosenthal v. Hochul, ___ F.4th ___, 2026 WL 262013, at *4 (2d Cir. Feb. 2,
2026). 	“For a plaintiff to get in the federal courthouse door and obtain a judicial
determination of what the governing law is, the plaintiff cannot be a mere bystander, but
instead must have a ‘personal stake’ in the dispute.” 	Food & Drug Admin. v. All. for
Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367, 379 (2024). Under this rule, Plaintiff lacks standing as
to many of his claims.
Plaintiff’s first cause of action alleges that Defendant Burnett defamed Presidents
Clinton and Trump. 	Compl. at ¶ 37. 	No conduct is alleged against Plaintiff himself in
this claim. The same is true for the second cause of action regarding invasion of privacy,
id. at ¶¶ 43-44, and part of the third cause of action. 	Id. at ¶ 46. “It is well settled that
privacy rights are personal rights.” RLO Grp. LLC v. Fonseca, 2025 WL 2721396, at *5
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2025) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652I (1977) (an
invasion of privacy is a personal right that cannot be maintained by other persons)); see
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 7 of 10

- 8 -
also Conradt v. NBC Universal, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 380, 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (rights
of this sort “may only be brought by or on behalf of the individuals who are actually the
subject of the wrongful acts.”). Because these causes of action do not allege any personal
harm directed toward him, just other individuals, Plaintiff lacks standing as to these
claims and they should be dismissed.
D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The sole claim as to which Plaintiff alleges specific harm to him is the allegation
that Defendant Cherniavska engaged in intentional infliction of emotional distress “by
deactivating her Whatsapp account without informing the plaintiff.” Compl. at ¶ 49.
In New York, a plaintiff asserting a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress faces an “extremely high burden” because such a claim “is a highly disfavored
claim at law.” 	Harding v. Dorilton Cap. Advisors LLC, 635 F. Supp. 3d 286, 304
(S.D.N.Y. 2022); see also Lieberman v. City of Rochester, 2011 WL 13110345, at *8
(W.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2011). 	“In order to prevail on a claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress, a plaintiff must demonstrate conduct ‘so outrageous in character, and
so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded
as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.’” 	Lieberman v. City of
Rochester, 2011 WL 13110345, at *8 (quoting Stuto v. Fleishman, 164 F.3d 820, 827 (2d
Cir. 1999)). The deletion of Whatsapp without disclosure to Plaintiff falls well short of
that high standard, and so the Court recommends dismissal of this claim.
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 8 of 10

- 9 -
E. Leave to Amend
Courts should generally not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend
“when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be
stated.” 	Branum v. Clark, 927 F.2d 698, 705 (2d Cir. 1991). “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).” Emrit v. Combs, 2024 WL 168331, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2024); see
also Emrit v. Combs, 2024 WL 586751, at *3-4 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2024). This would
appear to be such a case and, therefore, it is recommended that dismissal here be without
leave to amend.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED as set forth
above5; and it is
5 “Where a litigant persists in the filing of vexatious and frivolous suits, it may be appropriate to place certain
limitations on the litigant’s future access to the courts.” In re Lewis, 2024 WL 4566550, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 24,
2024) (citing Hong Mai Sa v. Doe, 406 F.3d 155, 158 (2d Cir. 2005)). Plaintiff’s litigiousness is well documented.
As of November 2025, it was noted in the Eastern District of New York that “Plaintiff has filed over one thousand
cases in the federal courts across the country.” 	Presidential Candidate No. P60005535 v. Burnett, 2025 WL
3268247, at *3. Plaintiff has previously been warned in this District that continued frivolous litigation may result
in a recommendation that he be barred from further litigation without leave of court. Emrit v. Grammys Awards on
CBS, 2024 WL 3083307, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. June 21, 2024). To the extent the Court adopts the recommendations
made above, it is also recommended that this matter be referred to Judge Brenda K. Sannes, the Chief Judge of the
Northern District, for consideration of an order limiting Plaintiff’s ability to initiate further litigation in this District
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 9 of 10

- 10 -
ORDERED, 	that 	the 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	serve 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Report-
Recommendation and Order upon the parties to this action.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14)6 days within
which to file written objections to the foregoing report. 	Such objections shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. 	Roldan v.
Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,
892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED . R. CIV . P. 72 & 6(a).
Dated: February 10, 2026
Albany, New York
6 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order by mail, three additional days will be added to the
fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the order was mailed to you to serve and
file objections. F ED. R. CIV. P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
FED. R. C IV. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Case 1:26-cv-00034-MAD-DJS Document 6 Filed 02/10/26 Page 10 of 10