Emrit v. Musk et al
| Ronald Satish Emrit 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 States of Emrits |
| Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Department of Government Efficiency and Mike Johnson |
| 3:2025cv00007 |
| January 13, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska |
| Ralph R Beistline |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| No cause code entered |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 14, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 SLG TEXT ORDER REASSIGNING CASE: By agreement of the judges, the above referenced case is hereby reassigned to the Honorable Ralph R. Beistline for all further proceedings. Please use the following case number on all future filings: 3:25-cv-00007-RRB. (SCD, COURT STAFF) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Ronald Satish Emrit. Filing fee $605/Not Paid. (PXS, COURT STAFF) Modified on 2/10/2025 to reflect date filed (PXS, COURT STAFF). |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ronald Satish Emrit.(PXS, COURT STAFF) |
| Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet. (PXS, COURT STAFF) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Department of Government Efficiency, Mike Johnson, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, filed by Ronald Satish Emrit.(PXS, COURT STAFF) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Alaska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
