Emrit v. Trump et al
| Ronald Satish Emrit |
| Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Commission, President Donald Trump, Department of Commerce and Department of Agriculture |
| 1:2019cv00018 |
| January 7, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Michael R Barrett |
| Stephanie K Bowman |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 26, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
CLERK'S JUDGMENT filed concurrently with #5 Order signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 2/25/19. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re #4 Report and Recommendation; Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) and the plaintiff is enjoined and prohibits from any additional filings in the SDOH which have not first been certified to have been filed in the correct venue. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 2/25/19. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing 4
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #3 Complaint filed by Ronald Satish Emrit. IT IS RECOMMENDED AS FOLLOWS: (1) Plaintiff's complaint should be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); (2) Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit should be declared a harassing and vexatious litigator, and therefore be ENJOINED AND PROHIBITED from filing any additional complaints in the Southern District of Ohio which have not first been certified to have been filed in the correct venue by an attorney in good standing in this Court or the jurisdiction in which he or she is admitted, or alternatively, which are accompanied by payment of the full filing fee; (3) The Clerk of Court should be specifically DIRECTED not to accept any such pleadings from the identified Plaintiff herein, absent compliance with the above restrictions, and should be instructed to dispose of such documents accordingly; (4) That pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), the Court certify that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 1/23/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/9/2019. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 3 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Commission, Donald Trump, filed by Ronald Satish Emrit. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (km) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER granting #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/9/2019. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (The following document(s) were not submitted to the Office of the Clerk: Service Copies, Summons and US marshal forms for all defendants except Trump) by Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit. (Attachments: #1 complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (jlw) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern 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.
