1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Case No.: 25-CV-2688 JLS AHG NUMBER P60005535, aka RONALD 12

SATISH EMRIT, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Plaintiff,

14 v. (ECF No. 2) 15 ERIN BURNETT, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

18 Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit’s Motion to 19 Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Motion,” ECF No. 2). The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 20 Motion. 21 IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION 22 All parties instituting a civil action, suit, or proceeding in a district court of the 23 United States, other than a petition for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $405.1 24 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay the filing fee 25

26 1 In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of $55. See 27 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. 28 Dec. 1, 2023)). The additional $55 administrative fee does not apply to persons granted leave to proceed 1 only if the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1915(a)(1). Section 1915(a)(1) provides: 3 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or 4 proceeding . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, 5 by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay 6 such fees or give security therefor. 7 As § 1915(a)(1) does not itself define what constitutes insufficient assets to warrant IFP 8 status, the determination of indigency falls within the district court’s discretion. See Cal. 9 Men’s Colony v. Rowland, 939 F.2d 854, 858 (9th Cir. 1991), reversed on other grounds 10 by 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (“Section 1915 typically requires the reviewing court to exercise 11 its sound discretion in determining whether the affiant has satisfied the statute’s 12 requirement of indigency.”). “An affidavit in support of an IFP application is sufficient 13 where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court costs and still afford the necessities of 14 life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. 15 Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). “One need not be absolutely 16 destitute to obtain benefits of the [IFP] statute.” Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 17 725 (9th Cir. 1960). “Nevertheless, a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with 18 some particularity, definiteness[,] and certainty.’” Escobedo, 787 F.3d at 1234. 19 The Court follows other courts in this district finding that Plaintiff “is a classic 20 example of a litigant who abuses the privilege of proceeding IFP.” Emrit v. Experian, Inc., 21 No. 18-cv-311-BAS-AGS, ECF No. 3, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2018). Plaintiff has filed 22 “over two hundred civil cases and appeals in the federal court system,” id., and has been 23 sanctioned by the Western District of Texas, determining that he “abuses the in forma 24 pauperis process and clogs the federal district courts with meritless litigation.” See Emrit 25 v. Nat’l Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, No. 1:14-cv-00392-SS, 2015 WL 518774, 26 at *4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2015) (listing cases). Plaintiff has also been barred from filing 27 suits without leave of court in at least three federal district courts. See Emrit v. Ctrs. for 28 Medicare & Medicaid Servs. (CMS), No. 2:14-cv-1761-GMN-PAL, 2016 WL 164992 (D. 1 Jan. 14, 2016); Emrit v. Nat’l Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, 2015 WL 2 ||518774, at *4; Emrit v. Time Warner, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00314-LAP, ECF No. 13 (S.D.N.Y. 3 ||May 16, 2014). Further, Plaintiff has filed this exact same incoherent complaint in the 4 || District of Oregon, where the court recommended dismissing the complaint with prejudice, 5 || denying IFP status, and entering a prefiling order against Plaintiff. Presidential Candidate 6 || Number P60005535 v. Burnett, No. 25-cv-1864-CL, ECF No. 4, at *7 (D. Or. Oct. 29, 7 ||2025). The court noted that his complaint “is untethered to reality” and that Plaintiff “has 8 hundreds of frivolous lawsuits in districts throughout the country.” /d. (collecting 9 || cases). 10 The Court finds that this kind of over litigation of frivolous issues is a waste of 11 ||judicial resources and an abuse of the IFP process. Therefore, the Court DENIES 12 || Plaintiff's Motion. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Jn 15 Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2). If Plaintiff wishes to proceed, he must pay the required 16 || filing and administrative fee of $405.00 no later than seven (7) days after this Order is 17 electronically docketed. Failure to timely make the applicable payment will result in 18 || dismissal of this action. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: November 10, 2025 . .

22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28