Arunachalam v. Andrews et al

Filing 40

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Dismiss; denying 29 Motion to Disqualify Judge. The Clerk shall close this file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 09/14/2017. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2017) Modified on 9/14/2017 (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Case No. 5:17-cv-03383-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
10
11

RICHARD G. ANDREWS, et al.,

Docket Nos. 19, 29

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

I. INTRODUCTION

15

Pending before the Court are two separate motions. First, Plaintiff Dr. Lakshmi

16

Arunachalam (“Plaintiff”) seeks recusal of the undersigned judge pursuant to Judicial Canons 2

17

and 3 and 28 U.S.C.§§144, 455. Although the basis for Plaintiff’s motion is not entirely clear, it

18

appears that Plaintiff’s assertions of lack of impartiality, bias, and prejudice are based upon rulings

19

by the undersigned that Plaintiff perceives as unfavorable. The motion is DENIED. Judicial

20

rulings are not a proper ground for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

21

Second, Defendants Richard G. Andrews (“Judge Andrews”), Leonard P. Stark (“Chief

22

Judge Stark”), Sue L. Robinson (“Judge Robinson”), and Elizabeth D. Laporte (“Judge Laporte”)

23

move to dismiss Plaintiff Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon

24

which relief may be granted. The Court finds it appropriate to take the motion under submission

25

for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth

26

below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

27
28

CASE NO.: 5:17-CV-03383-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
1

1
2

II. BACKGROUND
In a 79-page complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she is an inventor and owns several patents

3

relating to technology underlying Web applications. Plaintiff alleges that the United States is

4

using Plaintiff’s patented technology, and is engaged in a conspiracy to violate Plaintiff’s

5

constitutional rights. Plaintiff names as defendants three federal judges of the United States

6

District Court for the District of Delaware and one federal judge of this district, each of whom

7

presided over Plaintiff’s lawsuits, and allegedly violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and

8

willfully and maliciously misapplied the law in order to deprive her of her patents. Plaintiff

9

alleges that the judges “failed to perform their duty to uphold and enforce the Constitution and
breached their Oaths of Office, willfully, wantonly and fraudulently refused to uphold and enforce

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

J. Marshall’s Ruling and ‘Patent Prosecution History Estoppel’ previously upheld by the U.S.

12

Supreme Court.” Complaint, ¶124. Count I of Plaintiff’s complaint is entitled “Violations of the

13

Constitution and Oaths of Office and Breach of Public Trust,” and is predicated on Defendants’

14

alleged failure to enforce a Supreme Court decision and to apply res judicata. Count II is entitled

15

“Treason, Misprision of Treason, Aiding and Abetting Treason,” and is based upon Defendants’

16

alleged failure to comply with the United States Constitution. Count III is entitled “Conspiracy.”

17

Plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to quash Plaintiff’s patents. Count IV is entitled

18

“Hindering Access to Justice By Misfeasance, Denial of Due Process, Deprivation of Rights,

19

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Under 18 U.S.C. §242,” and is also based on a

20

conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her patents. In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff seeks an order to

21

void all of the judgments issued by defendants, and requests over $250 billion in damages.

22

III. STANDARDS

23

A motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of claims

24

alleged in the complaint. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.

25

1995). Dismissal “is proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of

26

sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.” Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732

27

(9th Cir. 2001). The complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

28

CASE NO.: 5:17-CV-03383-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
2

1

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

2

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

3

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

4

Pro se pleadings must be construed liberally. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th

5

Cir. 2000). The Court “need not give a plaintiff the benefit of every conceivable doubt” but “is

6

required only to draw every reasonable or warranted factual inference in the plaintiff’s favor.”

7

McKinney v. De Bord, 507 F.2d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 1974). The Court “should use common sense

8

in interpreting the frequently diffuse pleadings of pro se complainants.” Id. A pro se complaint

9

should not be dismissed unless the court finds it “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set
of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

519, 521 (1972).

12
13

IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco,

14

502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991) (federal judges have absolute immunity from civil liability for acts taken

15

in their judicial capacity); see also Jones v. U.S. Supreme Court, 2010 WL 2975790 (N.D. Cal.

16

2010) (judicial immunity bars claims that are based upon allegations concerning judicial officer’s

17

decision-making while presiding over cases and acts performed in judicial capacity). Judicial

18

immunity applies even where “the action [the judge] took was in error, was done maliciously, or

19

was in excess of his authority; rather he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the

20

‘clear absence of all jurisdiction.’” Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828

21

F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987), quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978).

22

In the present case, the defendants clearly had jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s cases pursuant

23

to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338 and 28 U.S.C. §636(c). Further, defendants were clearly acting

24

within their judicial capacities when they made rulings on various motions submitted to them

25

while presiding over Plaintiff’s lawsuits. Accordingly, judicial immunity applies.

26

Application of judicial immunity, however, does not leave plaintiffs who believe they

27

received an unfavorable, unconstitutional decision without a remedy: “[s]hould a federal judge or

28

CASE NO.: 5:17-CV-03383-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
3

1

other federal official performing a judicial or quasi-judicial act violate a litigant’s constitutional

2

rights in a proceeding pending in federal court, Congress has provided carefully structured

3

procedures of taking appeals, including interlocutory appeals, and for petitioning for

4

extraordinary writs.” Mullis at 1394. Plaintiff may appeal her cases, if she wishes. This Court,

5

however, lacks jurisdiction to void the judgments issued by defendants or to award damages.
V. CONCLUSION

6
7

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Because any amendment to the complaint

8

would be futile, the dismissal is with prejudice. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293,

9

1298 (9th Cir. 1998); Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: September 14, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CASE NO.: 5:17-CV-03383-EJD
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
4