Annamalai v. Sivanadiyan

Filing 14

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

ENTERED
February 15, 2017

IN THE UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA S
HOUSTON D IVISION

m

David J. Bradley, Clerk

AMALAI ANNAMAM I ,

BOP #56820-379,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO . H-17-0025
PARVATHI SIVANADIYAN ,

Defendant .

MEMO/ANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Annamalai Annamalai (
BOP #56820-379), also known as

Swamiji

Selvam Siddhar, is an inmate incarcerated in the

United States Bureau of Prisons .

Annamalai has filed a nCivil

Complaint E
and) Demand for Arbitration Pursuant to 9 U . . S . 5 4'
S C.
'
(
hcomplaint' (
') Docket Entry No.
defaulted

on

an

unspecified

alleging that the defendant has
contract .

On

January

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 .)
S.
(
Docket Entry No.

undersigned judge.

The

case was then assigned

to

the

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

1.

Discussion

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,
2015)

1:
l3-cr-437 ( . . Ga. July
N D

Annamalai now brings this civil action

contract ,

alleging

that

See

the

defendant,

for breach of

who

is

reportedly

Annamalai's wife, has defaulted on invoices totaling in excess of
one billion dollars .
Annamalai

seeks

See Complaint, Docket Entry No .

arbitration

of

the

dispute

and

damages

of

$10,000.00 per week for the remainder of Annamalai's lifetime. See
l
.d .
'
.

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
'
'
defendant

who

is

5 1915 ( 2)(
e)( B).

immune

from

such

relief.'
'

U .S .C .

There are consequences for prisoners whose

lawsuits are dismissed under this provision .

strikes' rule found
'

28

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(
'
'
S.
g);
Adepegba v . Hammons, 103 F. 383, 385 (
3d
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
'

2016);

Annamalai v . Revnolds, No. l:16-cv-

1373 ( D . Ga. July 8, 2016);
N.

Annamalai v . Paramasivam , et a1 .,

No. l:l6-cv-6079 ( .
N D. 111. July l3, 2016); (
4) Annamalai v .
United

States ,

No . 16-815

( .
Fed

July

22, 2016); and

( Annamalai v. United States, No. 16-816 ( .
5)
Fed

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
l915(
g).

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

litigation

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 .

No. 1:l6-cv-3415
umalicious'
'

See Annamalai v Sivanadivan ,

( . . Ind.)
S D

complaint

duplicates allegations made

is

considered

another federal

lawsuit by the same plaintiff . See Pittman v . Moore , 980 F .2d 994 ,

(
5th

1993) (
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 . .
S C.

1915 ( ( (
e) 2) B)

See,

e. ., Wilson v . Lynauqh, 878 F.2d 846 (5th Cir . 1989) (
g
duplicative
claims may be dismissed sua soonte). This will count as another
strike against Annamalai for purposes of 5 l9l5(
g).
As illustrated by the Comp laint and other p leadings submitted
in this case, Annamalai has a well-documented h istory of nblatantly

abusl
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
g
v . Revnolds, No. 1:16-cv-1373, 2016 WL 3746184 ( . . Ga . June
N D

2016) (
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

the

151st

Civ il

Court

for

Harris

County .

See

Siddhar

v.

Varadharajan, No. H-13-cv-1933, 2014 WL 28165498, at * 2 ( D. Tex.
S.
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
N D

2013)

(
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.
00
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 .) (
S.
Docket Entry No. 2)
is

VACATED ,

and

Annamalai's

pauper

status

is

REVOKED .

This action will be dismissed with prejudice. The
dismissal will count as a strike for purposes of 28

U . C . 5 l915(
S.
g).

Annamalai shall pay the entire $400.00 filing fee
for

this

case .

In

addition ,

Annamalai

is

SANCTIONED in the amount of $100.00 for his abusive

litigation

practices .

Prison

officials

having

custody of plaintiff Annamalai Annamalai (
BOP
#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 .

Annamalai

is

WARNED

that

the

filing

of other

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
s) (
Docket Entry
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 .

Z
SIM LAKE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-

6-