Emrit v. Emrit et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 9/21/2015. (c/m 9/22/2015 aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RONALD SATISH EMRIT
*
Plaintiff
*
v.
*
RONALD CEPHAS EMRIT,
TANYA BROOKS, and
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
Defendants
Civil Action No. RWT-15-2303
*
*
*
***
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The above-captioned case was filed together with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
on August 6, 2015. Because he appears to be indigent, Plaintiff’s motion shall be granted. For
the reasons set forth below, the Complaint must be dismissed.
The self-represented Complaint seeks to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction
regarding a claim against a federal agency and diversity jurisdiction regarding a claim that
Plaintiff is the appropriate guardian for his mother who suffers Alzheimer’s disease. Plaintiff’s
claim against the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is that it has the responsibility to perform a
clinical study on his mother to observe if any type of medicine would improve the “function of
oligodendrocytes,
astrocytes,
glial
cells
(neuroglia),
and
improve
the
function
of
neurotransmitters such as glutamate, serotonin (5-HT), GABA, dopamine, and acetylcholine.”
ECF No. 1 at 2. The claim against Ronald Cephas Emrit, Plaintiff’s father, is that he has
guardianship over Plaintiff’s mother and is not taking proper care of his mother. Id. Plaintiff
further claims that his phone number has been blocked; he has been advised his mother may have
six months to a year to live; and he may not be able to make it to his mother’s funeral if
something should happen to her. Id.
Assuming NIH owes the duty described in the Complaint, Plaintiff does not have
standing to assert the claim raised. The Complaint does not assert that Plaintiff himself is owed a
duty or has somehow been injured by decisions or actions taken by NIH. “[A]t an irreducible
minimum, Article III requires the party who invokes the court's authority to show that he
personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal
conduct of the defendant, and that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action and is
likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. In this manner Article III limits the federal judicial
power to those disputes which confine federal courts to a role consistent with a system of
separated powers and which are traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the
judicial process.”
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of
Church & State, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992). The Complaint fails to state a
cognizable claim against NIH on behalf of Plaintiff as Plaintiff has no power to assert a claim on
behalf of his mother.
Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Nevada and asserts the guardianship proceedings
which appointed his father guardian of his mother took place in Maryland, where they reside.
ECF No. 1. Despite the diversity of citizenship among the parties and Plaintiff’s claim for
$750,000 in damages,1 the claim asserted regarding guardianship is one this Court may not
entertain. The decision by the state court appointing Ronald Cephas Emrit guardian is a matter
over which the state court retains jurisdiction and power to issue orders and decisions to afford
1
It is unclear which claim Plaintiff relies upon for his claim to monetary damages. He seeks to have the state
court’s decision regarding appointment of his father as guardian altered to make Plaintiff guardian instead, but does
not delineate any basis for a claim to monetary damages.
2
whatever relief may be necessary to protect the disabled person’s best interests.
See
Wentzel v. Montgomery General Hospital, Inc., 293 Md. 685, 447 A.2d 1244 (1982) (noting that
courts of equity retain plenary jurisdiction), see also Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts §13-704.
The Court notes that Plaintiff has been the subject of an order barring him from filing
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas without first
obtaining leave from a Federal District Judge in that jurisdiction permitting him to do so. See
Emrit v. National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, et al., Case No. A-14-CA-392-SS
(W.D. Tex 2015) at ECF 35 (noting Emrit has filed 47 frivolous lawsuits in federal courts across
the country). The instant case is not the first frivolous claim filed by Plaintiff in this jurisdiction.
See Emrit v. Cheap-O Air, et al., Civil Action PWG-13-803 (D. Md. 2013) and Emrit v. Office
Depot, Inc., Civil Action RWT-13-2297 (D. Md. 2013) (noting Emrit is a vexatious filer).
Plaintiff is forewarned that this Court will not tolerate the use of in forma pauperis filing status
for pursuit of meritless litigation and continued abusive filing may result in a similar ban on
filing of litigation in this district.
A separate Order dismissing the Complaint follows.
September 21, 2015
Date
/s/
ROGER W. TITUS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?