Emrit v. Obama et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 6:26-cv-01060-HLT
ORDER
Plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit filed this case pro se against various public figures.1 He seeks
“500 billion dollars for the commission of the torts of public nuisance, and tortious interference
with politics.” Doc. 1-2 at 1. The claims seem to arise out of former President Barack Obama’s
appearance in interviews and podcasts, which Plaintiff alleges is libel, slander, nuisance, and
industrial espionage. Id. at 5. He alleges that companies featuring President Obama are committing
tortious interference with business relations under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Id. He also alleges
that the use of artificial intelligence in advertising increases stock prices and is an antitrust
violation. Id. at 6-7.
Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 3. The magistrate judge issued a
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that recommends the undersigned deny that motion and
dismiss this case. Doc. 4. The R&R cites 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits screening of a complaint
where a party seeks to proceed without payment of fees. Id. at 1-2. The R&R notes that Plaintiff
is a well-documented serial pro se filer who has filed hundreds of frivolous lawsuits, including
1 Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleadings are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But the Court does not
assume the role of advocate. Id.
Case 6:26-cv-01060-HLT Document 10 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
cases similar or identical to this one. Id. at 2. The R&R also raises valid questions about venue and
personal jurisdiction. Id. at 3-5. The R&R recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied, and that
the Court order him to pay the required filing fee within 14 days. Id. at 6. The R&R alternatively
recommends dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. Specifically, in
screening Plaintiff’s complaint, the magistrate judge noted that he has not established either
diversity of the parties or federal-question jurisdiction. Id. at 7. This was in addition to several
other obvious issues with Plaintiff’s complaint. See id. at 8. The R&R informed Plaintiff he had
14 days to file written objections and failure to do so would preclude appellate review. Id. at 9.
On April 7, 2026, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal. The Tenth Circuit has since
dismissed the appeal. Doc. 9. Plaintiff has not otherwise responded to the R&R and the time to do
so has passed.
Rule 72(b) governs R&Rs by magistrate judges on dispositive issues. The rule allows a
party to file objections and states that “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has reviewed the R&R and other filings in this case. The Court finds the
observations and findings in the R&R are correct. Plaintiff’s claims and allegations are difficult to
follow, and it is not clear how Kansas is the proper jurisdiction or venue to adjudicate any of the
claims asserted. Plaintiff has not specifically responded to the R&R. His notice of interlocutory
appeal does state that Plaintiff has standing for his claims because he is a presidential candidate
and “because the plaintiff is a supporter of President Donald John [Trump] who is insulted by the
former president’s conduct in particular and that a federal question is created from the Federal Tort
Claims Act . . . .” Doc. 5 at 2. This relates to some of the issues identified in the R&R. But as the
R&R noted, Plaintiff does not assert any claims against the United States that would support an
Case 6:26-cv-01060-HLT Document 10 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
FTCA claim, see Denney v. U.S. Postal Serv., 916 F. Supp. 1081, 1083 (D. Kan. 1996),2 nor is
being insulted by President Obama’s appearance in interviews and podcasts a plausible tort claim.
The only statements of jurisdiction in the complaint state that New Jersey and Connecticut have
jurisdiction. Doc. 1-2 at 3. Thus, Plaintiff has not shown that this Court in Kansas has subject-
matter jurisdiction over this case.
In sum, the Court adopts the alternative recommendation in the R&R that the case be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that the Report & Recommendation (Doc. 4) is
ADOPTED as the order of the Court.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.
THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED for the reasons
stated above. This case is closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2026 /s/ Holly L. Teeter
HOLLY L. TEETER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 In addition to President Obama, Plaintiff also names as defendants Michelle Obama, President Joe Biden, Jill
Biden, Hunter Biden, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and British Prime Minister
Keir Starmer. Most of these individuals are not otherwise discussed in the complaint, which also supports
dismissal.
Case 6:26-cv-01060-HLT Document 10 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 3