Sivanadiyan v. True

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 11/10/2017. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PARVATHI SIVANADIYAN,
Petitioner,
vs.

No. 3:17−cv–01223-DRH

WILLIAM TRUE,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Pro se Petitioner Parvathi Sivanadiyan, alleged wife of Annamalai
Annamalai who is currently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution at
Marion, Illinois, brings this habeas corpus action challenging the constitutionality
of Annamalai’s custody.

This case is now before the Court for a preliminary

review of the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in United States District Courts, which provides that upon preliminary
consideration by the district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the
petitioner.” Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the
rules to other habeas corpus cases.

Background
Petitioner alleges that she is the wife of Annamalai Annamalai, who is in the
“illegal custody” of the Respondent. (Doc. 1, p. 1). She claims that “the United
States marshal and/or prison authorities have failed to comply with provisions of
18 U.S.C. § 3621(c)” in their incarceration of Annamalai. (Doc. 1, p. 2). She
requests that Annamalai be released from custody. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Discussion
The Court will not get to the merits of Petitioner’s arguments, as it does not
have jurisdiction to do so. “[A] litigant generally must assert his or her own legal
rights and cannot rest a claim for relief on the legal rights or interests of third
parties.”

Wilson v. Lane, 870 F.2d 1250, 1255 (7th Cir. 1989).

A limited

exception exists, however, when an individual is incompetent or incapable of
proceeding on their own behalf. Id. at 1253 (citing Rumbaugh v. McKaskle, 730
F.2d 291, 293 (5th Cir. 1984); Lenhard v. Wolff, 443 U.S. 1306, 1308 (1979)
(Rehnquist, J., Opinion in Chambers)). “It is well-settled that a next-friend may
not file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a detainee if the detainee
himself could file the petition.” Wilson, 870 F.2d 1250, 1253 (citing Weber v.
Garza, 570 F.2d 511, 513 (5th Cir. 1978)). “A next-friend applicant, among other
things, must therefore explain why the detainee did not sign and verify the
petition.” Id. (citing Garza, 570 F.2d at 513-14). “If the next-friend cannot do so,
‘the court is without jurisdiction to consider the petition.’” Id.
Annamalai is not a party to this action, nor did he sign the Petition.
Petitioner has not alleged that Annamalai is incapable of proceeding on his own

behalf in court. In fact, Annamalai’s litigation history is testament to his ability,
and willingness, to represent himself. Looking only to his recent litigation history
in this Court is illustrative of this fact. On April 13, 2016, Annamalai submitted a
“Petition for Specific Performance” in this District, requesting, among other
things, his release from incarceration. Annamalai v. United States, No. 16-cv413-DRH (S.D. Ill. April 28, 2016). That action was dismissed at his request on
April 28, 2016. Id. at Docs. 4-5.
On May 6, 2016, Annamalai filed another habeas action in this District.
Annamalai v. Laird, No. 16-cv-524-DRH (S.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2016). In its Order
dismissing the case, which was later vacated, the Court outlined Annamalai’s
lengthy litigation history and previous designation as a vexatious litigant in
multiple jurisdictions. Id. at Doc. 15, pp. 6-8. The Court then designated him a
vexatious litigant, based on his “disturbing pattern of vexatious cases” and the
“amorphous pleading” at issue in that particular case. Id. The Court dismissed
Annamalai’s case as a sanction, and Annamalai was directed to show cause why
he should not be assessed further sanctions in the form of a fine and filing ban in
this District. Id. at Doc. 15, p. 8. Before any further sanctions were assessed,
Annamalai moved to dismiss the case without prejudice, so the Court vacated its
Order dismissing the case, granted Annamalai’s motion, and did not assess any
sanctions. Id. at Docs. 20, 23.
Annamalai has continued to bring actions in various jurisdictions since the
dismissal of the aforementioned cases. In fact, at least two recent actions brought

by Annamalai, in the Southern District of Indiana and the Southern District of
Texas, were brought against Petitioner. See Annamalai v. Sivanadiyan, No. 16cv-3415-WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind. July 7, 2017); Annamalai v. Sivanadiyan, No. 17cv-25 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2017). Annamalai voluntarily dismissed 16-cv-3415. In
17-cv-25, several appeals were filed after the case was dismissed, including a joint
appeal by Petitioner and Annamalai filed May 5, 2017. 1 The Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals ultimately dismissed all appeals in the action.
Based on the aforementioned history, the Court finds that Petitioner is not
an appropriate next-friend applicant for Annamalai. She has not alleged, and the
Court is certain she is incapable of showing, that Annamalai is incompetent or
otherwise incapable of bringing claims on his own behalf. In fact, the Court finds
the proposition that Annamalai would choose Petitioner to represent him
generally to be dubious, given his choice to sue her multiple times recently.
Further, even if Annamalai had condoned Petitioner representing him, the Court
suspects that he would only have done so to avoid sanctions this Court might
assess against him, since it recently threatened to sanction him in 16-cv-524DRH.

1

The Court notes that, in her “Emergency Motion to Order the Respondent to Allow the Petitioner
to Speak and Email Annamalai Annamalai” (Doc. 3), Petitioner claims that she has not been
allowed to speak with or email Annamalai for over a year. The Court finds this claim to be
suspect, given the litigation between Petitioner and Annamalai in the past year, and the joint
appeal filed by them in the Southern District of Texas.

Disposition
For the aforementioned reasons, this action is summarily DISMISSED for
lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment closing this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2017.11.10
09:50:44 -06'00'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE