United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ANNAMALAI ANNAMALAI also known as SWAMIJI SRI SELVAM, Plaintiff,
KATHERINE SEIREVELD, STEPHEN COPE, T. C. BROWN, Defendants.
ENTRY DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS AND
MALICIOUS AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
action was removed from Vigo County Superior Court to this
Court on June 14, 2017, on the basis, among others, that the
individual federal employees were acting within the scope of
their employment at the time the claims arose. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2679(d)(2). In the Entry of June 20, 2017, docket 5,
the Court screened the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). The Court dismissed a number of parties and
noted that some claims were misjoined.
Annamalai Annamalai was directed to file an amended complaint
which included only claims against Katherine Siereveld,
Steven Cope, and Todd Brown. Dkt. No. 5. The plaintiff was
also directed to report whether he has brought the same
claims against these defendants in other cases, and if so to
report with specificity the case names and numbers and
district in which they were brought.
plaintiff was formerly incarcerated at the Terre Haute FCI.
He is currently confined at the Atlanta United States
Penitentiary. He alleges that he is a Hindu high priest. The
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the plaintiff
was a “former leader of a defunct Hindu Temple in
Georgia, [and] 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. See United States v.
Annamalai, No. 1:13-cr-437 (N.D.Ga. July 16,
2015).” Annamalai v. Sivanadiyan, No.
4:17-0025, 2017 WL 633490 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2017). The
plaintiff has also filed more than 60 lawsuits in federal
courts and 40 state court cases. Id. In addition, he
has “struck out” by having filed more than three
frivolous federal lawsuits. Id. He has been declared
a vexatious litigant at a minimum in Texas state courts and
by the Northern District of Georgia. Id.
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2017.
The Court now screens the amended complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, under which the Court must dismiss any
complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.
amended complaint, the plaintiff names the following
defendants: 1) Katherine Seireveld, 2) Stephen Cope; 3) Todd
C. Brown; 4) Kathleen Kenny (allegedly an attorney for the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)); 5) Ashok Annamalai
(“Ashok”); 6) Jeffrey E. Kruger; and 7) Steven
Julian. Defendants Seireveld, Cope, Brown, Kenney, Kruger and
Julian are alleged to be BOP employees. Dkt. No. 1-2. Ashok
is a resident of Texas and is not an employee of the BOP. The
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
noted, the Court has already given the plaintiff one
opportunity to file an amended complaint. The Court, fully
aware of the plaintiff's abusive litigation history, will
show no further leniency in determining whether a viable
claim has been presented in this case.
Court previously told the plaintiff not to bring again any
claim against Ashok because it was misjoined. Dkt. No. 5.
Undeterred, the plaintiff again brings a state law breach of
contract claim against Ashok, an alleged citizen of Texas.
This fits the plaintiff's pattern of abusive, wasteful
litigation. The claim against Ashok is dismissed not only as
misjoined but because it is a state law claim. The Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such claim. 28 U.S.C.
claims asserted against the BOP defendants are for breach of
express and implied contract. The plaintiff was put on notice
that any tort claim brought against BOP employees should be
brought against the United States of America, dkt. 1, but he
failed to do so in his amended complaint. “The only
proper defendant in a [Federal Tort Claim Action] FTCA action
is the United States.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541
F.3d 688, 693 (7th Cir. 2008); 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b).
There is no FTCA cause of action against individual
employees. Id. The United States is not included as
a defendant in this case, and therefore any FTCA claim is
dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. See
Myles v. United States, 416 F.3d 551, 552 (7th Cir.
2005) (Noting that the composition and content of a complaint
are entirely the responsibility of the plaintiff, for
“even pro se litigants are masters of their
own complaints and may choose who to sue-or not to
Court chooses to also discuss the state law claims on the
merits, however, because changing the defendant will not
render the claims viable. The plaintiff's rationale that
an “implied contract” exists is based on
“judicial admissions given by each party.” Dkt.
No. 51, p. 8. The “admissions” upon which the
plaintiff relies were allegedly made during discovery in the
Vigo County case, 84D06-1705-CT-003620, filed on May 22,
2017, which was this case prior to its removal here on June
of the breach of contract claims, the plaintiff demands that
the Court “order the defendants to specifically perform
every one of the ‘monetary' aspect(s) of the deemed
admisions [sic] towards the plaintiff….” Dkt.
No. 51, p. 13. The plaintiff's exhibits to the amended
complaint include a cover letter dated May 23, 2017, serving
requests for admissions under Rule 36 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. No. 51-1, pp. 5, 7. The
requests for admissions themselves are not part of this
record. Nonetheless, there are no plausible circumstances
under which an unspecified request for admission could form
the basis of a claim for breach of contract for monetary gain
against any BOP employee defendant in this action. This is
merely another attempt at a fraudulent scheme that the
plaintiff seems unable to cease no matter how severely he is
punished criminally or sanctioned civilly. The breach of
contract claims are dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and as frivolous and
extent the plaintiff attempts to also bring a claim alleging
that the defendants have “acted in concert with the
RICO Enterprise known as the Counter Terrorism Unit, ...