1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Case No. 3:18-cv-02488-JD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

v. 9

10 EDWARD J. DAVILA, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 The Court struck the original complaint in this case for revealing the home addresses of 14 two district judges. Dkt. No. 6. The Court dismissed an amended complaint that ran well over 15 100 pages in length and purported to sue, among others, former President Obama, a current United 16 States Senator, several Federal Circuit judges, and judges on federal and state courts in Delaware, 17 Texas, and this district. Dkt. No. 12. The amended complaint was accompanied by hundreds of 18 pages of exhibits. Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff was expressly advised that judicial officers are rarely, if 19 ever, subject to a lawsuit for performance of their duties, and that further leave to amend would 20 likely not be granted. Dkt. No. 12 at 1-2. 21 Plaintiff sought mandamus review of the dismissal by the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. 22 Dkt. No. 17. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of mandamus on less than a quorum because 23 several of the justices were named as putative defendants by plaintiff. Dkt. No. 22. 24 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint that again purports to sue a multitude of past 25 and present federal judges and justices, elected and appointed officials, and others. Dkt. No. 14. 26 The second amended complaint is 124 pages long, and is, like the prior versions, an unintelligible 27 mass of allegations that do not amount to a plausible claim of any sort. 1 Plaintiff has had several opportunities to file an actionable complaint. The case is 2 || dismissed with prejudice. See Choudhuri v. Specialised Loan Servicing, Case No. 19-cv-4198-JD, 3 || 2020 WL 3892867, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2020). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: July 14, 2020 6 7

JAMESYDONATO

8 UnitedfStates District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28