Annamalai v. Sivanadiyan
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 10 MOTION for Appointment of Arbitrator(s), 9 MOTION Request to quash hearing. Order to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees is vacated. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
February 15, 2017
IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA S
HOUSTON D IVISION
David J. Bradley, Clerk
AMALAI ANNAMAM I ,
CIVIL ACTION NO . H-17-0025
PARVATHI SIVANADIYAN ,
MEMO/ANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Annamalai Annamalai (
BOP #56820-379), also known as
Selvam Siddhar, is an inmate incarcerated in the
United States Bureau of Prisons .
Annamalai has filed a nCivil
and) Demand for Arbitration Pursuant to 9 U . . S . 5 4'
') Docket Entry No.
alleging that the defendant has
3 , 2017 ,
Annamalai was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this
case. See Annamalai v . Sivanadivan, No. H-16-mc-3042 ( D . Tex .)
Docket Entry No.
case was then assigned
After considering al1 of the pleadings and
Annamalai's litigation history, leave to proceed Xu forma pauperis
will be revoked , and this case will
explained below .
dism issed for reasons
Annamalai, the former leader of a defunct Hindu Temple in
Georgia , was sentenced to more than 27 years' imprisonment by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ,
following his conviction on multiple counts of bank fraud , tax
fraud, bankruptcy fraud, and obstruction of justice.
United States v . Annamalai,
l3-cr-437 ( . . Ga. July
Annamalai now brings this civil action
for breach of
Annamalai's wife, has defaulted on invoices totaling in excess of
one billion dollars .
See Complaint, Docket Entry No .
$10,000.00 per week for the remainder of Annamalai's lifetime. See
Because Annamalai has requested leave to proceed in forma
Dauperis, the court is required to scrutinize the claims and
dismiss the Complaint , in whole or in part, if it determines that
the Comp laint uis frivolous, malicious,
fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted' or 'seeks monetary relief from a
5 1915 ( 2)(
U .S .C .
There are consequences for prisoners whose
lawsuits are dismissed under this provision .
strikes' rule found
Under the nthree-
28 U .
S.C. 5 1915(
g), a prisoner is not
allowed to bring a civil action 1n forma pauperis in federal court
if, while incarcerated , three or more of his civil actions or
appeals were dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted unless he is in
'imminent danger of serious physical injury.' 28 U. C. 5 l9l5(
Adepegba v . Hammons, 103 F. 383, 385 (
5th Cir . 1996)
A national case index reflects that Annamalai has filed more
than 60 lawsuits in the federal courts .
Of these , at least five
civil actions filed by Annamalai while incarcerated have been
dismissed as frivolous :
( . . . June
S D N Y.
Annamalai v . Rankumar, No . 16-cv-4491
Annamalai v . Revnolds, No. l:16-cv-
1373 ( D . Ga. July 8, 2016);
Annamalai v . Paramasivam , et a1 .,
No. l:l6-cv-6079 ( .
N D. 111. July l3, 2016); (
4) Annamalai v .
No . 16-815
22, 2016); and
( Annamalai v. United States, No. 16-816 ( .
July 19, 2016).
Thus, Annamalai has more than three 'strikes' against him for filing
meritless actions prior to filing the Complaint in this case .
Annamalai does not allege facts showing that he is currently
under imminent danger of serious physical injury for purposes of
Because he does not fit within the exception to the
three-strikes rule, Annamalai is not eligible to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee . A ccordingly , the order granting him
leave to proceed él forma Daureris will be vacated and his pauper
status will be revoked .
Moreover, a rev iew
of Annamalai 's substantial
history reflects that he has filed a nearly identical comp laint
against the same defendant in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana .
See Annamalai v Sivanadivan ,
( . . Ind.)
duplicates allegations made
lawsuit by the same plaintiff . See Pittman v . Moore , 980 F .2d 994 ,
per curiam). Because Annamalai has made the
same or similar claims in another lawsuit filed by him previously ,
the court concludes that
present Complaint is subject to
dismissal as malicious under 28 U . .
1915 ( ( (
e) 2) B)
e. ., Wilson v . Lynauqh, 878 F.2d 846 (5th Cir . 1989) (
claims may be dismissed sua soonte). This will count as another
strike against Annamalai for purposes of 5 l9l5(
As illustrated by the Comp laint and other p leadings submitted
in this case, Annamalai has a well-documented h istory of nblatantly
ing) the judicial process' by filing civil actions to harass
the victims of his crim inal enterprise and others associated with
his crim inal case . Hindu Temple and Communitv Center of the High
Desert, Inc. v . Raghunathan, 714 S .
E.2d 628, 629-30 (
Ga. App . 2011)
describing Annamalai's abusive conduct); see also, e. ., Siddhar
v . Revnolds, No. 1:16-cv-1373, 2016 WL 3746184 ( . . Ga . June
detailing Annamalai's suit against an IRS agent involved in
his prosecution). In addition to his federal lawsuits, Annamalai
has filed more than 40 lawsuits in the state courts of Georgia ,
Ohio , and Texas, where he has been declared a vexatious litigan t by
Varadharajan, No. H-13-cv-1933, 2014 WL 28165498, at * 2 ( D. Tex.
June 2O, 2014) (
describing Annamalai's record of abusive litigation
in state and federal court).
Because of Annamalai's history of
filing frivolous claims connected to his crim inal case , he also has
been declared a vexatious litigant by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, which has imposed
restrictions on his ability to file lawsuits connected to his
criminal case .
See Hindu Temp le and Communitv Center of High
Desert, Inc . v . Kepner, No. 1:12-cv-2941 ( . . Ga. March
ECF No . 111)7 see also United States v . Annamalai, No. 1:l3-cr-437
N D. Ga. July 16, 2015) (
ECF No. 355, p.
In light of
Annamalai's record of vexatious litigation and abuse of judicial
resources, the court concludes that a sanction in the amount of
$100. is appropriate.
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly , the court ORDERS as follows :
The Order to Proceed W ithou t Prepay ing Fees or
Costs as to plaintiff Annamalai Annamalai in
No. H-l6mc-3O42 ( D . Tex .) (
Docket Entry No. 2)
This action will be dismissed with prejudice. The
dismissal will count as a strike for purposes of 28
U . C . 5 l915(
Annamalai shall pay the entire $400.00 filing fee
SANCTIONED in the amount of $100.00 for his abusive
custody of plaintiff Annamalai Annamalai (
#56820-379) shall place a hold on his inmate trust
account and shall deduct this amount when funds are
availab le and forward them to the Clerk of Court
until the sanction and filing fee are paid in fu ll .
vexatious and/or frivolous motions or pleadings in
this case will result in the imposition of
additional sanctions, including monetary penalties .
Annamalai's Motion to Request to Quash the Hearing
Docket Entry No. 9) and Expedited Application for
an Appointment E
of) Arbitrator l
No . 1O) are DENIED as moot.
The Clerk will provide copies of this Memorandum Op inion and
Order to the plaintiff ; to the Warden , FCI Terre Haute, P .O . Box
33 , Terre Haute, IN 47802: and to the Manager of the Three -strikes
List for the Southern District of Texas .
SIGNED at Houston , Texas , on this 15th day of February , 2017 .
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?