Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-62038-RAR

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE DEPT.

AND CLARK COUNTY CUSTODIAN

OF RECORDS, 

Defendants.

________________________________/ 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff, 

Ronald Satish Emrit, filed a Complaint, [ECF No. 1], and a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis, [ECF No. 3], on November 1, 2022. Upon initial screening, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

A “district court has unquestionable authority to control its own docket and broad 

discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before it . . . .” Guice v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Labor, 

754 F. App’x 789, 791 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d 1253, 

1262 (11th Cir. 2014)). Further, “[a] federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case 

sua sponte under Rule 41(b).” Hanna v. Fla., 599 F. App’x 362, 363 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 48-49 (1991)). Similarly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 

1915(e), courts are permitted to dismiss a suit “any time [] the court determines that . . . (B) the 

action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be 

Case 0:22-cv-62038-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

To state a claim for relief, a pleading must contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the 

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). As 

such, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. 

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[T]o state a plausible claim for relief, the plaintiff[] must 

plead ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is 

liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1268 (11th Cir. 

2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

Even under the relaxed pleading standard afforded to pro se litigants, see Abele v. Tolbert, 

130 F. App’x 342, 343 (11th Cir. 2005), Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to meet the foregoing standards. 

The Complaint does not include sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to allow the Court to 

reasonably infer that Defendants are liable for any misconduct or wrongdoing, or what the claim 

or claims against each of them may be. Plaintiff’s Complaint fails for several reasons, including 

but not limited to: (1) the underlying facts do not demonstrate any plausible claims against 

Defendants or that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief; (2) Plaintiff seeks relief that this Court cannot 

provide; and (3) Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction.

First, Plaintiff does not allege any plausible claims for relief against Defendants, or 

otherwise. Plaintiff attempts to frame the Complaint as a civil rights case against the Fort 

Lauderdale Police Department and the Custodian of Records of Clark County, Nevada, alleging 

violations of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Compl. ¶ 23, Equal Protection Rights, Compl. ¶ 25, 

Case 0:22-cv-62038-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

Due Process Rights, Compl. ¶ 27, Freedom of Association, Compl. ¶ 29, and Right to Privacy, 

Compl. ¶ 31. However, the meandering facts alleged in the Complaint, put bluntly, have absolutely

nothing to do with any of these legal allegations. The Complaint states that Plaintiff brings this 

case “to ensure that the State of Florida and other jurisdictions in the United States understand that 

the plaintiff was never married to Sabine Jules of Fort Lauderdale (i.e. the lawsuit is seeking an 

injunction as a legal declaration to obtain an annulment in the federal court system).” Compl. at 

1. The Complaint alleges that in 2002, Plaintiff was married in a wedding chapel in Clark County, 

Nevada, but Plaintiff’s “ex-wife” is “not his type.” Compl. ¶¶ 14–17. The Court cannot discern a 

legally cognizable claim from these allegations. 

The Complaint also includes many paragraphs and exhibits that have no apparent 

connection to the underlying allegations, to the extent any allegations can be ascertained. A 

sampling of these unrelated assertions includes the following:

• “Plaintiff compares this legal action to removing a bankruptcy from a credit report 

after someone has filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has 

filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy twice.” Compl. ¶¶ 18–19. The Complaint then 

describes Plaintiff’s two alleged bankruptcy proceedings, including the judges, 

locations, trustees, and paralegals involved. Compl. ¶¶ 19–21.

• “Accordingly, Judge Susan Greenhawt already ruled in plaintiff’s favor by 

terminating the plaintiff’s parental rights on June 1st of 2009 which plaintiff 

believes is a decision on the level of Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, the plaintiff 

supports the decision of Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and 

Samuel Alito in overturning Roe v. Wade and arguing that Roe v. Wade is a form 

of witchcraft.” Compl. at 8–9.

Case 0:22-cv-62038-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

• Attached exhibits appear to be photos of Plaintiff, women, celebrities, and 

politicians accompanied by hand-written descriptions of lawsuits Plaintiff has filed 

in various courts around the county. [ECF No. 1-2].

Indeed, rather than provide a short and plain statement of the facts, or separate allegations into 

orderly claims, Plaintiff’s pleading contains rambling, incoherent sentences and exhibits that do 

not allege any facts indicating the basis of a cognizable claim. 

Relatedly, Plaintiff does not sufficiently draw any connection between his purported claims 

and the named Defendants. The Complaint alleges: “Rather than file a lawsuit against the 

Plaintiff’s ex-wife Sabine Jules, the plaintiff believes that it makes more sense to file this lawsuit 

against the city of Fort Lauderdale, and specifically the Fort Lauderdale Police Department, to 

obtain an injunction as a legal declaration that the plaintiff was never married to Sabine Jules of 

Fort Lauderdale.” Compl. ¶ 1. Plaintiff does not allege any actions or omissions by the Fort 

Lauderdale Police Department or the Clark County Custodian of Records related to the underlying 

facts. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Complaint is entirely conclusory in nature. The Court simply cannot 

discern the nature of Plaintiff’s claims or what the events giving rise to his claims are. “[A] 

complaint will be dismissed as insufficient where the allegations it contains are vague and 

conclusory.” Fullman v. Graddick, 739 F.2d 553, 556-57 (11th Cir. 1984).

Second, Plaintiff seeks relief beyond what this Court may grant—namely, an annulment of 

his marriage. Under each cause of action, the Complaint includes two to three numbered 

paragraphs, stating it would be a violation of a certain statutory or constitutional right “to preclude 

and/or prevent him from being able to obtain an annulment through the federal court system rather 

than local family law courts or with the Vatican, i.e. archdiocese of Miami.” See e.g., Compl. ¶

23. Plaintiff requests a “legal declaration” that he was never married to his first wife because 

Case 0:22-cv-62038-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

“Plaintiff believes it is embarrassing to have to explain” that he was married to a woman “that was 

not his type.” Compl. ¶ 17. Plaintiff cites no authority—and the Court is unaware of any—that 

would allow a district court judge to grant an annulment. Plaintiff also seeks damages amounting 

to $80,000 but fails to explain the basis for this request. See Compl. at 7–8. 

Third, the Court cannot determine the basis of its subject-matter jurisdiction from the 

allegations stated. In fact, the Complaint states, “the court does not already have personal or 

subject matter jurisdiction....” Compl. ¶ 8 (emphasis added). Plaintiff attempts to establish 

“complete diversity jurisdiction,” but Plaintiff is a Florida resident suing a Florida police 

department (which, in any event, is not sui juris, see Green v. Miami-Dade County, No. 05-20280, 

2006 WL 8433384, at *3 (S.D. Fla. May 25, 2006)). Compl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff further attempts to 

establish Federal Question jurisdiction by invoking the United States Constitution and federal 

statutes. However, as addressed supra, the alleged claims have no connection to any purported 

Constitutional or statutory violations. Compl. ¶¶ 10–11. Federal courts are “empowered to hear 

only those cases within the judicial power of the United States as defined by Article III of the 

Constitution,” and which have been entrusted to them by a jurisdictional grant authorized by 

Congress. Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Taylor 

v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, once a federal court determines 

that it is without subject matter jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue. Id. at 410. It is 

therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, [ECF No. 1], is DISMISSED 

without prejudice.

1

 The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Any pending motions are 

DENIED as moot. 

1

 Although ordinarily this Court would grant a pro se litigant at least one opportunity to amend his

complaint before dismissal, here, the Court finds that an amendment would be futile because the Complaint 

Case 0:22-cv-62038-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 7th day of November, 2022. 

 _________________________________ 

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

is frivolous and does not even approximate an actionable claim. See Cornelius v. Bank of Am., NA, 585 F. 

App’x 996, 1000 (11th Cir. 2014) (“While a pro se litigant generally must be given at least one opportunity 

to amend his complaint, a district judge need not allow an amendment where amendment would be futile.”); 

see also Henry v. Fernandez-Rundle, 773 F. App’x 596, 597 (11th Cir. 2019) (affirming sua sponte

dismissal without leave to amend of a frivolous complaint). Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s 

Complaint as frivolous. 

Case 0:22-cv-62038-RAR Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/07/2022 Page 6 of 6