Arunachalam v. Davila et al

Filing 23

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 7/14/2020. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

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 DISMISSING CASE

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

12
13

The Court struck the original complaint in this case for revealing the home addresses of

14

two district judges. Dkt. No. 6. The Court dismissed an amended complaint that ran well over

15

100 pages in length and purported to sue, among others, former President Obama, a current United

16

States Senator, several Federal Circuit judges, and judges on federal and state courts in Delaware,

17

Texas, and this district. Dkt. No. 12. The amended complaint was accompanied by hundreds of

18

pages of exhibits. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff was expressly advised that judicial officers are rarely, if

19

ever, subject to a lawsuit for performance of their duties, and that further leave to amend would

20

likely not be granted. Dkt. No. 12 at 1-2.

21

Plaintiff sought mandamus review of the dismissal by the Ninth Circuit, which was denied.

22

Dkt. No. 17. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of mandamus on less than a quorum because

23

several of the justices were named as putative defendants by plaintiff. Dkt. No. 22.

24

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that again purports to sue a multitude of past

25

and present federal judges and justices, elected and appointed officials, and others. Dkt. No. 14.

26

The second amended complaint is 124 pages long, and is, like the prior versions, an unintelligible

27

mass of allegations that do not amount to a plausible claim of any sort.

28

1

Plaintiff has had several opportunities to file an actionable complaint. The case is

2

dismissed with prejudice. See Choudhuri v. Specialised Loan Servicing, Case No. 19-cv-4198-JD,

3

2020 WL 3892867, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2020).

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 14, 2020

6
7
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

8
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