Ronald Emrit v. Bank of America
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999227944-2] Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00547-RJC-DSC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999338201]. Mailed to: Ronald Satish Emrit. [13-2253]
Appeal: 13-2253
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/17/2014
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2253
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00547-RJC-DSC)
Submitted:
February 24, 2014
Decided:
April 17, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Satish Emrit, Appellant Pro Se. Renner Jo St. John,
ROGERS, TOWNSEND & THOMAS, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-2253
Doc: 14
Filed: 04/17/2014
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Satish Emrit appeals the district court order
denying
him
leave
to
proceed
in
forma
pauperis
(“IFP”)
and
dismissing his complaint without prejudice to his ability to
refile upon payment of the fee.
For the reasons that follow, we
affirm.
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (2012), a non-prisoner litigant may qualify
for IFP status after submitting an affidavit listing all assets
and
pay.
anticipated
expenses
and
substantiating
inability
to
When a non-prisoner litigant is granted IFP status, he is
excused from prepayment of filing fees.
315
his
F.3d
396,
398
(4th
Cir.
2003).
to
grant
or
deny
IFP
discretion
DeBlasio v. Gilmore,
A
status
district
and
must
court
has
base
its
decision on “‘the poverty and good faith of the applicant and
the meritorious character of the cause.’”
Dillard v. Liberty
Loan Corp., 626 F.2d 363, 364 (4th Cir. 1980) (quoting Kinney v.
Plymouth Rock Squab Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915)).
The PLRA
provides that, notwithstanding any portion of the filing fee
paid by the plaintiff, the district court “shall dismiss” a case
brought
untrue.”
IFP
if
it
determines
“the
allegation
of
poverty
is
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A) (2012).
An order denying IFP status is reviewed for abuse of
discretion.
Pointer v. Wilkinson, 502 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir.
2
Appeal: 13-2253
Doc: 14
2007).
Filed: 04/17/2014
Pg: 3 of 4
We discern no such abuse of discretion by the district
court.
The
court
conducted
a
detailed
review
of
Emrit’s
finances and filing history, observing that Emrit had enjoyed a
substantially higher income for the previous twelve months; that
he had asserted in another case, just two months prior, that he
had $10,000 in a checking account; that another district court
had recently found Emrit able to pay the filing fee; and that
Emrit’s
living
findings,
the
expenses
court
were
was
exorbitant.
amply
justified
Based
in
Emrit’s allegation of poverty was untrue.
turn,
required
dismissal
§ 1915(e)(2)(A);
F.3d
305,
306
Thomas
(7th
of
v.
Cir.
Emrit’s
Gen.
2002)
these
concluding
that
That conclusion, in
action.
Motors
on
See
Acceptance
(“Because
the
28
U.S.C.
Corp.,
allegation
288
of
poverty was false, the suit had to be dismissed; the judge had
no choice.”); see also Michau v. Charleston Cnty., S.C., 434
F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that when requirements of
§ 1915(e)(2) are not satisfied, district court “must dismiss”
action).
We
have
reviewed
Emrit’s
remaining
conclude that they entitle him to no relief.
evidence of judicial bias.
501,
530
judicial
(4th
bias
Cir.
2008)
claim,
and
assertions
and
Nor do we find any
See United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d
(describing
recognizing
3
required
that
showing
“judicial
for
rulings
Appeal: 13-2253
alone
Doc: 14
almost
Filed: 04/17/2014
never
Pg: 4 of 4
constitute
a
valid
basis
for
a
bias
or
partiality motion” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed IFP on appeal
and affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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.
Why Is My Information Online?