SRIVASTAVA v. ROBERTS et al
ENTRY AND ORDER Dismissing Action; The action is therefore dismissed for failure to prosecute. The only way to prevent the further abusive litigation of this plaintiff is to specify that the dismissal be with prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 5/3/2013. Copy Mailed.(CKM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CAROLYN H. SRIVASTAVA,
THOMAS HOGAN, et al.,
Entry and Order Dismissing Action
This lawsuit was removed from the Vanderburgh Superior Court on
February 5, 2013. One week later this court noted that restrictions have
been imposed on the plaintiff’s ability to file papers in all federal courts in
this Circuit either directly or indirectly. These restrictions emanate from the
Order of the Court of Appeals issued on August 30, 2011, in No. 11-2817,
and the Amended Injunction issued on July 29, 2011, in No. IP 04-mc-104SEB-DML. The Order of the Court of Appeals is this:
[T]he clerks of all federal courts in this circuit shall return unfiled
any papers submitted either directly or indirectly by or on behalf
of Carolyn H. Srivastava unless and until she pays in full the
sanction that has been imposed against her. See In re: City of
Chi., 500 F.3d 582, 585-86 (7th Cir. 2007); Support Sys. Int’l,
Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). In
accordance with our decision in Mack, exceptions to this filing
bar are made for criminal cases and for applications for writs of
habeas corpus. See Mack, 45 F.3d at 186-87. This order will be
lifted immediately once Srivastava makes full payment. See
City of Chi., 500 F.3d at 585-86.
The Amended Injunction issued on July 29, 2011, enjoins the plaintiff from
filing or continuing to litigate any claim, however designated, in any court of
any jurisdiction, in which she targets the defendants in any of her prior
cases or claims litigated in this court. In re: Srivastava, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 84121 (S.D.Ind. July 29, 2011).
The court has taken judicial notice of the foregoing restrictions and
the plaintiff has been notified of them. The plaintiff was given a period of
time in which to demonstrate that those restrictions are either no longer in
effect or would not prevent her from prosecuting this case with filings and in
other respects. The plaintiff filed a response on February 26, 2013. Other
proceedings have been stayed.
One portion of the response of February 26, 2013, emphasized that
the undersigned and other judicial officers are named defendants. The
court addressed this in its Entry of March 26, 2013, and concluded:
there is no legitimate basis for the plaintiff to sue the assigned
judicial officers. The plaintiff=s suggestion otherwise is both
frivolous and contrived. As the court concluded previously,
therefore, there is no need for disqualification of the assigned
The remainder of the plaintiff’s response of February 26, 2013, consists of
the plaintiff’s disagreement with the orders referenced above. Her
disagreement leads her to the conclusion that the orders are not valid, but
the record shows otherwise. The orders are valid and must be enforced.
The consequences of the circumstances noted in Part I of this Entry
are that (1) the filing of this action in the Vanderburgh Superior Court
violated the Amended Injunction issued in No. IP 04-mc-104-SEB-DML,
which remains in effect, and (2) the plaintiff is prohibited from filing papers
in this action based on the Order in No. 11-2817, which also remains in
effect. In turn, the plaintiff is unable to prosecute this action.
The action is therefore dismissed for failure to prosecute. The only
way to prevent the further abusive litigation of this plaintiff is to specify that
the dismissal be with prejudice.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Electronically registered counsel
CAROLYN H. SRIVASTAVA
3105 Lehigh Ct.
Indianapolis, IN 46268
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?