Arunachalam v. Davila et al

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Amended Pleadings due by 6/7/2018. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/17/2018. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 3:18-cv-02488-JD
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
EDWARD J. DAVILA, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Pro se plaintiff Arunachalam filed an amended complaint after the Court struck the original

14

complaint for including the home addresses of judges of this court. Dkt. No. 9. The amended

15

complaint runs to 195 pages and purports to sue, among others, former President Obama, a current

16

United States Senator, most of the justices of the Supreme Court, several Federal Circuit judges,

17

and judges on federal and state courts in Delaware, Texas and this district. The amended

18

complaint is accompanied by hundreds of pages of exhibits.

19

The Court dismisses the complaint on its own motion under Rule 8, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

20

U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The amended

21

complaint is an incomprehensible morass of allegations that are a far cry from a short and plain

22

statement of claims and the Court’s jurisdiction over them. A putative defendant would not know

23

where to begin in responding, and the Court cannot determine whether anything in this tangle of

24

allegations is sufficient to state a claim. Plaintiff’s pro se status does not relieve her of conformity

25

to the pleading rules. See, e.g., Romano v. United States Army Core of Engineers, No. 3:17-CV-

26

00930-JD, 2017 WL 6448221, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2017).

27
28

Plaintiff may have a third and final attempt to properly plead a claim, if she so chooses.
The second amended complaint must be filed by June 7, 2018. Plaintiff is cautioned that judicial

1

officers are rarely, if ever, properly named as defendants for conduct related to the performance of

2

their offices. Plaintiff is also advised that no further opportunity to amend is likely to be afforded

3

after the second amended complaint. No defendant served with the second amended complaint, if

4

any, need respond until directed to by the Court.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 17, 2018

7
8
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2