Beast et al v. Snoop Doggy Dogg et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SATISH DAT BEAST (Former Client
of “Larry Birkhead Attorney” Nancy
Hass of Hallendale Beach, Florida as
Family Law Attorney), RONALD
SATISH EMRIT (Former Client of
Paul Gardner, Esquire of Gardner Law
Group of Baltimore, Maryland as
Entertainment Attorney for Outkast,
Mya, Mos Def, Tommy Davidson, and
Salahis), GO GO SATISH (Former
Client of Thomas Hart, Esquire of On
the Potomac of Washington, DC and
Holland & Knight, LLP and
Entertainment Attorney for Gloria
Estefan and James Todd Smith also
known as LL Cool J),
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SNOOP DOGGY DOGG (Marijuana
Smoker named Calvin Broadus),
SNOOP DOGGY DOG BOWL IN
ARIZONA, THE RACIST STATE OF
ARIZONA (The Only State Which
Did not Approve of the Holiday for
the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King,
Junior), NBC, COMCAST, NBC
UNIVERSAL, VIVENDI
UNIVERSAL, PEACOCK, UNITED
STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
(USOC), MIKE TIRICO, CRIS
COLLINSWORTH, SUNDAY
NIGHT FOOTBALL, ROGER
CIVIL NO. 26-00006 HG-WRP
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO (1)
DISMISS COMPLAINT WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND AND (2) DENY
APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEES OR
COSTS AS MOOT
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HG-WRP Document 5 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

2
GOODELL, NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE (NFL),
KENDRICK LAMAR, JAY-Z, DR.
DRE, ICE CUBE, ESTATE OF
EAZY E “ERIC WRIGHT,” SUPER
BOWL HALFTIME SHOW, BAD
BUNNY,
Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO (1) DISMISS COMPLAINT
WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND (2) DENY APPLICATION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT
On January 6, 2026, Plaintiffs “Satish Dat Beast (Former Client of
‘Larry Birkhead Attorney’ Nancy Hass of Hallendale Beach, Florida as Family
Law Attorney), Ronald Satish Emrit (Former Client of Paul Gardner, Esquire of
Gardner Law Group of Baltimore, Maryland as Entertainment Attorney for
Outkast, Mya, Mos Def, Tommy Davidson, and Salahis), and Go Go Satish
(Former Client of Thomas Hart, Esquire of On the Potomac of Washington, DC
and Holland & Knight, LLP and Entertainment Attorney for Gloria Estefan and
James Todd Smith also known as LL Cool J[)]” (collectively, Plaintiff1),
proceeding without counsel, filed a complaint (Complaint) against “Snoop Doggy
Dogg (Marijuana Smoker named Calvin Broadus), Snoop Doggy Dog Bowl in
1 Although there are three named plaintiffs, the complaint suggests that the second
and third plaintiffs are the “same person” as the first plaintiff. See Complaint, ECF
No. 1 at 7 (“[t]he second plaintiff is essentially the same person as the first
plaintiff” and “[t]he third plaintiff is also the stage name for the first plaintiff”)
Accordingly, the Court will refer to him as “Plaintiff” rather than “Plaintiffs.”
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HG-WRP Document 5 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

3
Arizona, The Racist States of Arizona (The Only State Which Did not Approve of
the Holiday for the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior), NBC, Comcast,
NBC Universal, Vivendi Universal, Peacock, United States Olympic Committee
(USOC), Mike Tirico, Cris Collinsworth, Sunday Night Football, Roger Goodell,
National Football League (NFL), Kendrick Lamar, Jay-Z, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube,
Estate of Easy E ‘Eric Wright,’ Super Bowl Halftime Show, [and] Bad Bunny”
(collectively, Defendants). See Complaint, ECF No. 1.
Plaintiff alleges claims for public nuisance, industrial espionage,
intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and tortious interference with
business relations/contracts. See id. ¶¶ 60-66. Plaintiff also filed an Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Application). See
Application, ECF No. 2. For the reasons stated below, the Court FINDS and
RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED without leave to
amend and that Plaintiff’s Application be DENIED as moot.2
I. 	Screening
The Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to
Section 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the dismissal of any claim that it
2 Within fourteen days after a party is served with the Findings and
Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a party may file written
objections in the United States District Court. A party must file any objections
within the fourteen-day period to preserve appellate review of the Findings and
Recommendation.
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HG-WRP Document 5 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

4
finds frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.
2000) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to
dismiss [a § 1915(a)] complaint that fails to state a claim). Additionally, the Court
liberally construes a pro se complaint. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137
(9th Cir. 1987). However, the Court cannot act as counsel for a pro se litigant,
such as by supplying the essential elements of a claim. See Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S.
225, 231 (2004); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th
Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following counts: (1) public
nuisance; (2) industrial espionage; (3) IIED; and (4) tortious interference with
business relations/contracts. See Complaint, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 60-66. Plaintiff’s claim
for public nuisance is based on the allegation that Defendant Snoop Doggy Dogg is
a public nuisance because “he is a marijuana smoker and former gangster rapper”
and because he “is not on the level of Martin Luther King, Junior.” See id. ¶¶ 60-
61. Plaintiff’s industrial espionage claim does not have any factual allegations and
rather argues: “While the tort of industrial espionage is usually connected to
misappropriation of a trademark, trade secret, or patent involving intellectual
property, . . . [it] should include ideas such as excessive advertising, subliminal
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HG-WRP Document 5 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

5
messaging, and spying on consumers with artificial intelligence[.]” Id. ¶ 64. His
IIED claim asserts in its entirety: “The plaintiff argues that it is both extreme and
outrageous and egregious for NBC, Comcast, Peacock, and NBC Universal to
constantly promote a marijuana smoker and former gangster rapper as being some
type of an [sic] historical figure on the level of Martin Luther King, Junior when
Snoop Doggy Dogg is clearly NOT on the level of Martin Luther King, Junior or
Thurgood Marshall.” Id. ¶ 65. Finally, Plaintiff’s tortious interference with
business relations/contracts claim asserts that “the promotion of marijauan [sic]
smokers and former gangster rappers such as Snoop Doggy Dogg interferes with
the careers of other African Americans who do not want marijuana smokers or
gangster rappers like Snoop Doggy Dogg, Dr. Dre, or Kendrick Lamar being
treated by NBC like the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior or Thurgood
Marshall.” Id. ¶ 66.
A court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the facts alleged are
“clearly baseless.” See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992). “A finding
of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the
irrational or the wholly incredible[.]” Id. at 33. Based on a review of the entire
Complaint, the Court FINDS that Plaintiff’s allegations and claims are “factually
frivolous.” Accordingly, the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be DISMISSED.
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HG-WRP Document 5 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

6
As to whether leave to amend the Complaint should be permitted, the
Ninth Circuit has explained that, “[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment
can cure the defect, . . . a pro se litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s
deficiencies and an opportunity to amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas
v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Because
Plaintiff’s allegations are factually frivolous, the Court FINDS that it is “absolutely
clear” that no amendment will cure the defects in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Therefore,
the Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED
without leave to amend.
II. 	Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs
Insofar as this Court finds and recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint
be dismissed without leave to amend, it also FINDS and RECOMMENDS that
Plaintiff’s Application be DENIED as moot.
CONCLUSION
The Court FINDS and RECOMMENDS that the district court:
• 	DISMISS the Complaint, ECF No. 1, without leave to amend; and
• 	DENY the Application, ECF No. 2, as moot.
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HG-WRP Document 5 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 7
PageID.<pageID>

7
IT IS SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, February 11, 2026.
Satish Dat Beast, Ronald Satish Emrit, Go Go Satish v. Snoop Doggy Dogg, et. al,
Civ. No. 26-00006 HG-WRP; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO (1)
DISMISS COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AND (2) DENY
APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR
COSTS AS MOOT.
Case 1:26-cv-00006-HG-WRP Document 5 Filed 02/11/26 Page 7 of 7
PageID.<pageID>