Emrit et al v. Social Security Administration (SSA)

Filing 36

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 34 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 24 Motion to Dismiss GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 10 Application for Leave to Proceed in forma paupe ris is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Ronald Satish Emrit and Nicole Rocio Leal-Mendez are vexatious litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and are ENJOINED and PROHIBITED from filing any complaint, petition, or other do cument in this court without first obtaining leave of this court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is authorized to reject and refuse to file, and/or discard any new complaint, petition, document on a closed case, or any other doc ument submitted in violation of this Order.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this order to each federal circuit court of appeals and federal district court in which Plaintiffs have pending cases. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/29/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2
3

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, et al.,

4

Plaintiffs,
vs.

5
6
7

SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

9
10

Pending before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation

11

(“R&R”) of the Honorable Peggy A. Leen, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No.

12

34). Plaintiffs Ronald Satish Emrit (“Emrit”) and Nicole Rocio Leal-Mendez

13

(“Mendez”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an Objection. (ECF No. 35). For the reasons

14

discussed below, the Court will accept and adopt Magistrate Judge Leen’s Report and

15

Recommendation in full.

16

I.

BACKGROUND
This action was referred to Judge Leen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

17
18

District of Nevada Local Rule IB 1-4. Accordingly, Judge Leen recommends that this

19

Court enter an order granting Emrit’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 24) and

20

denying Emrit’s Application to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 10). Moreover, Judge Leen

21

recommends that this Court declare Plaintiffs to be vexatious litigants pursuant to 28

22

U.S.C. § 1651(a).

23

II.

24
25

LEGAL STANDARD
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations

of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. §

Page 1 of 3

1

636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must

2

make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which objections are

3

made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

4

recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. IB 3-

5

2(b).

6

III.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Objection. (ECF No. 35). Plaintiffs argue that

7
8

they “should not be labeled as ‘vexatious filers’ because of the proposition that their

9

lawsuits are not frivolous, malicious, or non-meritorious.” (See Objection at 3). The

10

Court has reviewed de novo the entirety of the record upon which Judge Leen’s Report

11

relied, and the Report itself. Upon such review, the Court has determined that Judge

12

Leen’s findings are thoroughly supported by the record, and will accept the findings in

13

full.

14

IV.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34)

is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit’s Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit’s Application to
Proceed IFP (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Ronald Satish Emrit and Nicole

22

Rocio Leal-Mendez are vexatious litigants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and are

23

ENJOINED and PROHIBITED from filing any complaint, petition, or other document

24

in this court without first obtaining leave of this court. Accordingly, if Plaintiffs intend to

25

file any papers with the court they must first seek leave of the Chief District Judge of this

Page 2 of 3

1

court by filing an application. The application must be supported by a declaration of

2

plaintiff stating: (1) that the matters asserted in the new complaint or papers have never

3

been raised and disposed of on the merits by any court; (2) that the claim or claims are

4

not frivolous or made in bad faith; and (3) that he or she has conducted a reasonable

5

investigation of the facts and such investigation supports the claim or claims.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is authorized to reject and

7

refuse to file, and/or discard any new complaint, petition, document on a closed case, or

8

any other document submitted in violation of this Order.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of

10

this order to each federal circuit court of appeals and federal district court in which

11

Plaintiffs have pending cases: the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Case No. 14-06484);

12

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Case No. 14-17253); Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

13

(Case No. 14-15139); District of Rhode Island (Case No. 1:2014-cv-00106); Northern

14

District of Texas (Case No. 3:2014-cv-03844); Eastern District of Virginia (Case No.

15

1:2014-cv-01612); Middle District of Louisiana (Case No. 3:2014-cv-00608); District for

16

the District of Columbia (Case No. 1:2014-cv-02083); Middle District of North Carolina

17

(Case No. 1:2015-cv-00374); District of Utah (Case No. 2:2015-cv-00366); District of

18

Arizona (Case No. 2:2015-cv-00936); and Eastern District of Kentucky (Case No.

19

5:2015-cv-00155).

20

DATED this 29th day of July, 2015.

21
22
23

_________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

24
25

Page 3 of 3