Emrit v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

• Docket Number: 2:22-CV-00110
• Decision Date: 30 March 2022
• Parties: RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia

1

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, et al. Defendants.

No. 2:22-CV-00110

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division

March 30, 2022

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the court is the plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 2) and Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (ECF No. 1). This matter is assigned to the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin, United States District Judge, and is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for pretrial management as well as the submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition. (ECF No. 3.) For the reasons explained more fully herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (ECF No. 1) be DENIED, that the Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and prefiling sanctions be imposed upon Plaintiff as a vexatious litigator, prohibiting him from proceeding in forma pauperis in any future cases in this District except as provided by the Court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Litigation History in the Federal Courts

A well-documented “serial pro se filer” since approximately 2013, Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit (“Plaintiff” or “Emrit”) has initiated more than three hundred civil actions in district courts nationwide, from Maine to Hawaii; despite the fact that most or all of these complaints have been dismissed for improper venue or failure to state a claim, Plaintiff continues to abuse the in forma pauperis (“IFP”) privilege by recycling the same patently frivolous allegations against various government agencies and officials in inscrutable pleadings that demonstratively clog the federal district courts with meritless litigation.^[1] Due to Plaintiff's “extensive and abusive nationwide litigation practices . . . Plaintiff has been deemed a vexatious litigant or subjected to prefiling requirements in multiple district courts across the country.” Emrit v. Trump, 1:19-CV-18, 2019 WL 140107, at *2 (Jan. 9, 2019) report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 935028 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2019). A district court in Hawaii catalogued a portion of those nationwide orders:

The Court again takes judicial notice of Emrit's extensive record of filing in districts nationwide, including those in which he has been deemed a vexatious litigant or subjected to prefiling requirements. See, e.g., Emrit v. Az. Supreme Court, 15-CV-01718, 2016 WL 910151, at *4 (D. Ariz. Mar. 9, 2016) (finding “that there is an adequate record to support the issuance of a vexatious litigant order against Plaintiff” and citing cases); Emrit v. Nat'l Acad. of Recording Arts & Scis., 1:14-cv-00392, 2015 WL 518774 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2015) (discussing forty-seven meritless federal lawsuits filed by Emrit since March 2013 and entering a vexatious litigant order against Plaintiff); Emrit v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2:14-cv-01760, 2015 WL 4597834 (D. Nev. July 29, 2015) (entering vexatious litigant order against Emrit); Emrit v. Continuum Legal, U16-CV-1424, 2017 WL 2622368, *2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2017) (“Plaintiff is a serial pro se litigant who is subject to pre-filing injunctions in at least two courts.”); Emrit v. Sec. of State, 16-CV-610-S, 2017 WL 3209449 (D.R.I. Jan. 9, 2017) (noting that plaintiff has been declared a “vexatious filer” in several districts and enjoined from further filings without leave of court). See also Emrit v. Am. Commc'ns Network, Inc., 583 F. App'x. 46, 47 (4th Cir. 2014) (cautioning Emrit “that federal courts, including this court, are authorized to impose sanctions upon vexatious and repetitive litigants for frivolous filings [and warning him that] [f]urther frivolous filings by Emrit may result in this court sanctioning him, including by ordering a prefiling injunction that limits his access to the court”) (citation omitted).

Emrit v. Sec'y of Hawaii, 17-CV-00504, 2018 WL 264851, at *2 n.2 (D. Haw. Jan. 2, 2018). See also Emrit v. Devos, 8:20-cv-00773, 2020 WL 9078298, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2020) (enjoining Emrit from filing any document in the district without prior court approval); Emrit v. Simon, 17-cv-04605 SRN-SER (D. Minn. Dec. 8, 2017), Dkt. Nos. 4 and 9 (dismissing Emrit's claims with prejudice and ordering that he be restricted from filing new cases in the district unless represented by licensed counsel, or with prior written authorization from a judicial officer, while noting that Emrit has initiated approximately 150 federal lawsuits since 2013).

“Notwithstanding such sanctions and admonishments, as well as a resounding lack of success in the federal courts that would give pause to most litigants, Plaintiff has given no hint of abating his pernicious conduct.” Trump, 2019 WL 140107, at *2. Plaintiff's continued scattershot filings fail to heed numerous district courts' efforts to explain in detail the federal venue requirements and the specific deficiencies in his pleadings under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.^[2] That includes at least five other cases in this Court. Plaintiff initiated four civil actions in this Court on September 12, 2017; all four of those cases were transferred to other district courts based upon a lack of venue in this Court.^[3] Plaintiff initiated a fifth civil action on August 9, 2021, and it was likewise transferred to another district court on August 10, 2021.^[4]

Despite the consistent decisions of multiple district courts explaining why his filings are improper, Plaintiff continues to abuse the IFP privilege to initiate strikingly similar and/or duplicative lawsuits in federal forums that bear no relation to the allegations set forth in his pleadings. As the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida explained, “savvy and experienced pro se litigants, such as Emrit, understand the legal system's reluctance to sanction them and use it to their advantage,” knowing that, despite “obviously not proceeding in good faith,” the “courts will generally give them the wrongs committed” by the defendants when “the factual allegations Mr. Emrit proffers run the gamut of Mr. Emrit being bumped into by a child while standing in a Wal-Mart pharmacy line in Texas, to his admiration of actresses Livia Brito and Adriana Lima, to the activities of numerous political public figures”); Emrit v. Wyo. Sec. of State, 2:17-cv-00174-SWS (D. Wyo. Oct. 31, 2017), Dkt. No. 3 (dismissing case); Emrit v. Johnson, 2:17-cv-13337 GCS-RSW (E.D. Mich. Oct. 19, 2017), Dkt. No. 4 (dismissing with prejudice Emrit's claims as frivolous); Emrit v. Lawson, 1U7-CV-03624, 2017 WL 4699279, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017) (concluding that Emrit's “action is patently frivolous and therefore subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),” noting that “Mr. Emrit has a long history of filing pro se frivolous litigation in other districts and has been barred from filing in several of them,” and warning that “the Court will not hesitate to impose a filing bar sanction if he proceeds to file any additional frivolous cases in this Court”); Emrit v. Marion Cty. Hous. Auth., 3:16-cv-1854, 2017 WL 743882, *4 (D. Ore. Feb. 23, 2017) (dismissing Emrit's claims with prejudice and noting that Emrit “has filed complaints in numerous other districts in which he brings claims that are nearly identical”); Emrit v. Heck, 17-CV-74, 2017 WL 5624943, at *1 (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2017) (finding dismissal appropriate when “the claim asserted here is frivolous” and transfer would not be in “the interest of justice”). benefit of the doubt and there will be few or no consequences to their actions.” Devos, 2020 WL 9078298, at *3.

B. Plaintiff's Current Complaint

Continuing with the same pattern of conduct, on March 3, 2022, Plaintiff- appearing pro se-filed the Complaint in this case, asserting claims of negligence, various constitutional violations, and violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against five federal agencies: the Department of Justice's Board of Immigration Appeals; United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; United States Customs and Border Protection; United States Department of State; and United States Department of Homeland Security (collectively, the “Defendants”). (ECF No. 2.) The Complaint also alleges, without elaboration, that venue is proper in this Court “pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Sections 1391 and 1400.” Id. at 5.

Plaintiff alleges that he is “an indigent, disabled, and unemployed resident of the state of Florida.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff asserts that between 2019 and 2020, while living with his sister in Hagerstown, Maryland, he began communicating with “Mary from Kharkov City, Ukraine” via smartphone applications including Ukraine Date and WhatsApp. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff subsequently “lost the number for Mary from Kharkov City, Ukraine . . . [and] was unable to communicate with [her] between the summer of 2020 and recently in January of 2022.” Id. at 6. He alleges that “[a]fter looking all over the world for ‘Mary from Kharkov City, Ukraine'” he was able to “finally find[] her on Muslim.com.” Id. According to Plaintiff, Mary is now his fiance, and “[b]ecause of the emergency of the war between Russia and the Ukraine, the plaintiff is trying to obtain a fiance visa or K-29 visa for his fiance.” Id. at 2, 6.

In order to cut through what he describes as expensive and “unnecessary ‘red tape' . . . involved with immigration paperwork and legal status as a legal permanent resident,” Plaintiff asserts that he “is looking for a declaratory judgment and/or injunctive relief as an equitable remedy” which would require the...