Emrit et al v. Social Security Administration (SSA)

Filing 33

ORDER that Motions 26 - 30 and 32 are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/15/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, et al.,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01760-GMN-PAL

9

Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

12

Defendant.

ORDER
(Mtn in Limine – Dkt. #26)
(Mtns to Redact – Dkt. ##27, 32)
(Mtn for Nolle Prosequi – Dkt. #28)
(Mtn to Request Civil Jury Trial – Dkt. #29)
(Mtn for Appointment of Counsel – Dkt. #30)

13

This matter is before the Court on six motions filed by pro se Plaintiffs Ronald Satish

14

Emrit and Nicole Rocio Leal-Mendez: Motion in Limine (Dkt. #26), Motion to Redact the FRCP

15

Rule 59 Motion to Request a New Trial (Dkt. #27), Motion for Nolle Prosequi (Dkt. #28),

16

Motion to Request a Civil Jury Trial (Dkt. #29), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. #30),

17

and Motion to Redact the Motion to Vacate the Dismissal Order (Dkt. #32).1 The Court has

18

considered these motions. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 and 1-9.

20

On April 22, 2015, Court entered an Order to Show Cause (Dkt. #21) directing Plaintiffs

21

to file a response on or before May 22, 2015, stating why they should not be barred from filing

22

any further actions in this court without first obtaining permission. This was based on Plaintiffs’

23

long history of vexatious litigation in the District of Nevada and other federal district courts and

24

circuit courts of appeal around the country. That same day, the Court entered an Order (Dkt.

25

#20) denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Case (Dkt. #18), Motion to Vacate Order Dismissing

26

Case (Dkt. #19), and Motion in Limine (Dkt. #17) as procedurally improper, frivolous, and

27
1

28

The Court will address Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. #24) in the Report of Findings
and Recommendation entered concurrently with this Order.

1

premature. The Court also screened the Complaint (Dkt. #1-1) and determined that Plaintiffs

2

failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Order (Dkt. #20).

3

Since the Court issued the Order to Show Cause addressing Plaintiffs’ patent abuse of the

4

legal system, Plaintiffs have filed seven additional motions. The six motions addressed by this

5

Order are procedurally improper, nonsensical and frivolous, individually and when read together.

6

For example, the Plaintiffs request a jury trial, a trial date and appointment of counsel at the

7

same time they seek to abandon the prosecution of this action and a motion in limine admitting

8

an attached document as character evidence. These inappropriate filings reinforce the conclusion

9

that filing restrictions are necessary to curb Plaintiffs’ abusive litigation conduct. As the Order

10

to Show Cause explained in great detail, Plaintiffs have a long history of submitting meritless

11

and frivolous filings. The motions are denied.

12

Based upon the foregoing,

13

IT IS ORDERED:

14

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine (Dkt. #26) is DENIED.

15

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Redact the FRCP Rule 59 Motion to Request a New Trial

16

(Dkt. #27) is DENIED.

17

3. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Nolle Prosequi (Dkt. #28) is DENIED.

18

4. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Request a Civil Jury Trial (Dkt. #29) is DENIED.

19

5. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. #30) is DENIED.

20

6. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Redact Motion to Vacate (Dkt. #32) is DENIED.

21

Dated this 15th day of June, 2015.

22

____________________________________
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-