Emrit v. Combs et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Ronald Satish Emrit
v. Civil No. 24-cv-038-JL-AJ
Sean “P. Diddy” Combs, Bad Boy
Entertainment, and Atlantic Records
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiff, Ronald
Satish Emrit, who claims to reside in Maryland and Florida, has
filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against Sean “P. Diddy” Combs,
Bad Boy Entertainment, and Atlantic Records. The Complaint --
which asserts no connection to New Hampshire -- is before the
court for preliminary review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d).
Standard
The court screens complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding
in forma pauperis to determine whether the plaintiff has
asserted any non-frivolous claim upon which relief might be
granted, seeks monetary relief from any defendant who is immune,
or fails to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). Where the defense of improper venue
is “‘obvious from the face of the complaint and no further
factual record is required to be developed,’” the court may, sua
sponte, dismiss the case. Cox v. Rushie, No. CA 13-11308-PBS,
Case 1:24-cv-00038-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 02/20/24 Page 1 of 4

2
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86794 at *14, 2013 WL 3197655 at *4 (D.
Mass. June 18, 2013) (quoting Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d
1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006)); see also Wilkinson v. Sec’y, Fla.
Dep’t of Corr., 622 F. App’x 805, 809 (11th Cir. Fla. 2015). The
court construes the pleadings of pro se parties liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Discussion
Federal venue law states, in pertinent part, that a civil
action may only be brought in “a judicial district in which any
defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State
in which the district is located,” or in “a judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise
to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is
the subject of the action is situated.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-
(2); see also id. § 1400(a) (venue for copyright infringement
claims is in district where defendant or defendant’s agent
resides). The plaintiff here makes no allegation in the
Complaint that there is any connection between the District of
New Hampshire and the events and parties named in the Complaint
that would satisfy the venue requirements of federal law.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a case may be transferred to
cure a lack of venue, in lieu of dismissal, if the transfer is
in the interest of justice. As the plaintiff has filed the same
Case 1:24-cv-00038-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 4

3
complaint in multiple districts, and the complaint has been
dismissed elsewhere for reasons stated in those cases,1 there is
no cause to conclude that a transfer is in the interest of
justice. Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss this
action in its entirety, without prejudice, for improper venue.2
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss the case, without prejudice, for improper venue. Then,
the clerk should enter judgment and close the case.
1 See, e.g., Emrit v. Combs, No. 3:24-cv-00048-JAM (D. Conn.
Feb. 14, 2024) (ECF No. 11) (lack of venue and failure to state
claim upon which relief can be granted); Emrit v. Combs, No.
1:24-cv-037-JAW (D. Me. Feb. 9, 2024) (ECF No. 5) (lack of
proper venue); Emrit v. Combs, No. 24-cv-0129, 2024 WL 199548,
at *5, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9007, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 18,
2024) (failure to state federal claims upon which relief can be
granted, pro se plaintiff cannot assert claims on behalf of
third parties, lack of complete diversity, and declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims),
appeal filed, No. 24-1269 (3d Cir. Feb. 14, 2024); Emrit v.
Combs, No. 24-cv-00213 (PKC), 2024 WL 168331, at *2, 2024 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 7714, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2024) (dismissing
complaint as frivolous); Emrit v. Combs, No. 24-cv-30-LJV, 2024
WL 586751, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2024) (lack of personal
jurisdiction and venue, and failure to state a non-frivolous
claim), appeal filed, No. 24-360 (2d Cir. Feb. 13, 2024).
2 This court need not decide whether the prior decisions
that dismissed essentially the same complaint preclude the
plaintiff from litigating the same claims here, as dismissal is
warranted here for improper venue. Cf. Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 34 (1992) (dismissal of complaint filed in forma
pauperis under predecessor to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) “could have
a res judicata effect on frivolousness determinations for future
in forma pauperis petitions”).
Case 1:24-cv-00038-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 02/20/24 Page 3 of 4

4
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. The
objection period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file
any objection within the specified time waives the right to
appeal the district court’s Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-
Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016). Only those issues
raised in the written objections “‘are subject to review in the
district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such
objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations omitted).
________________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 20, 2024
cc: Ronald Satish Emrit, pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00038-JL-AJ Document 3 Filed 02/20/24 Page 4 of 4