Arunachalam v. Davila
- James Donato
- 3:18-cv-02488
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Arunachalam v. Davila, Judge Donato dismissed the case with prejudice after finding the second amended complaint unintelligible and implausible.
Lakshmi Arunachalam, whose case was dismissed with prejudice; the named defendants were not required to proceed with the case.
What happened
In Arunachalam v. Davila, Lakshmi Arunachalam filed several complaints against numerous judges, government officials, and others. The court struck the first complaint for revealing judges’ home addresses and dismissed a later complaint that was more than 100 pages long.
The court said the second amended complaint was 124 pages long and again contained an unintelligible mass of allegations that did not present a plausible claim. After several opportunities to file an actionable complaint, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Judge James Donato issued the order on July 14, 2020. The order notes that the Ninth Circuit denied Arunachalam’s request for review and that the Supreme Court affirmed that denial.
The detailed version
- Arunachalam v. Davila · No. 3:18-cv-02488
- James Donato
- July 14, 2020
Background
The court had previously struck the original complaint because it revealed the home addresses of two district judges. It later dismissed an amended complaint that exceeded 100 pages and purported to sue former President Obama, a current United States senator, several Federal Circuit judges, judges on federal and state courts, and others. That complaint included hundreds of pages of exhibits. The court warned Arunachalam that judicial officers are rarely, if ever, subject to lawsuits for performing their duties and that further permission to amend would likely not be granted.
Arunachalam sought review of the dismissal through a mandamus petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which denied the request. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of mandamus; the opinion states that the Supreme Court acted without a quorum because several justices had been named as proposed defendants by Arunachalam.
Ruling
Arunachalam then filed a second amended complaint that again purported to sue numerous past and present federal judges and justices, elected and appointed officials, and others. The complaint was 124 pages long. The court described it as an unintelligible mass of allegations that did not amount to a plausible claim of any sort. Because Arunachalam had several opportunities to file an actionable complaint, Judge James Donato ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The opinion does not identify a specific claim that was considered on its merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.