Ronald Satish Emrit v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al.

Summary

A United States Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing with prejudice Ronald Satish Emrit's amended complaint against the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other defendants. The recommendation concludes that the complaint fails to state claims for tortious interference, seeks relief the court may lack authority to grant, and is subject to previously imposed filing restrictions; it also recommends denying in forma pauperis status and certifying that an appeal would be frivolous.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint failed to state a legally cognizable claim because it did not connect the elements of either asserted tort to factual allegations of wrongful conduct by the defendants.
2. Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because plaintiff had already been given an opportunity to amend and the amended complaint failed to cure the previously identified deficiencies; no possible amendment could cure the purported causes of action.
3. The court recommended denying the IFP application and certifying that an appeal from the recommendation would be frivolous and not taken in good faith.
4. The court recommended dismissal for the alternative reason that plaintiff had not complied with the prefiling requirements previously imposed in the District of Oregon.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated a legally cognizable claim for tortious interference with contract or tortious interference with business relations.
2. Whether the amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice after the plaintiff was previously given an opportunity to amend.
3. Whether the plaintiff's in forma pauperis application should be denied and a potential IFP appeal certified as frivolous.
4. Whether the plaintiff's failure to satisfy previously imposed filing restrictions provided an alternative basis for dismissal.

Disposition

other