reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court’s determination that an IFP complaint is 2 USCA11 Case: 20-13362 Date Filed: 03/08/2021 Page: 3 of 3 frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
How later courts described this case
- reviewing for abuse of discretion a district court’s determination that an IFP complaint is 2 USCA11 Case: 20-13362 Date Filed: 03/08/2021 Page: 3 of 3 frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
- stating we liberally construe pro se pleadings
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
USCA11 Case: 20-13362 Date Filed: 03/08/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13362
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-20697-JLK
RONALD SATISH EMRIT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SECRETARY MIGUEL CARDONA,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
DEFAULT RESOLUTION GROUP,
ACTION FINANCIAL SERVICES,
Defendants-Appellees,
NELNET,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 8, 2021)
USCA11 Case: 20-13362 Date Filed: 03/08/2021 Page: 2 of 3
Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Emrit, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, breach of contract, negligence,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy, as frivolous,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He asserts the district court erred
because he alleged sufficient facts to establish his claims. Emrit was granted in
forma pauperis (IFP) status before the district court.
Subsection 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) states that a court shall dismiss at any time an
IFP proceeding that the court determines to be frivolous. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). “A claim is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in
law or fact.” Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001). Moreover,
§ 1915 accords judges the “power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly
baseless.” Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Emrit’s
complaint. See Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (reviewing
for abuse of discretion a district court’s determination that an IFP complaint is
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13362 Date Filed: 03/08/2021 Page: 3 of 3
frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). Although pro se complaints are liberally
construed, Emrit’s complaint fails to allege facts or legal arguments with “arguable
merit.” See Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007) (stating we
liberally construe pro se pleadings); Bilal, 251 F.3d at 1349. His complaint
contained numerous legal terms and concepts, but failed to connect those concepts
to his underlying argument that the garnishment of his disability checks was
illegal, and his student loan debts should be discharged. The only conduct by the
defendants he appears to challenge is their involvement in garnishing or failing to
end the garnishment of his checks. He failed to connect this conduct, however, to
any contractual or employment relationship, denial of due process, his race,
differential treatment, a negligent violation of duty, emotional distress, or
publication at issue. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.
3