Opinion
24-cv-00446 (KAD)
06-14-2024
NIRJALA RAJKARNIKAR Plaintiff, v. US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ET AL. Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED RULING (ECF NO. 26)
Kari A. Dooley, United States District Judge
As detailed in the Recommended Ruling, Plaintiff's initial complaint recounted issues with her prior employers, Stanley Black & Decker as well as MGM Grand. It complained of ten “false trespass” orders from a school, MGM and the “Portugal Consulate.” And roughly speaking, she alleged a criminal conspiracy tying these events together. Magistrate Judge Spector recommended that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and that Plaintiff be permitted to address the deficiencies identified in an amended complaint. See ECF No. 16. This Court approved and adopted the first Recommended Ruling. See ECF No. 20. The Plaintiff thereafter filed a series of purported amended complaints. See ECF Nos. 17, 19, 21. The amended complaint at ECF No. 21 was thereafter reviewed, and in a Recommended Ruling, Magistrate Judge Spector recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice, noting first that in her amended complaint, Plaintiff includes none of the claims contained in her initial complaint and instead brings claims arising out of her interactions with a newly named defendant, Dr. Reza, a dentist from Katz Dental. See ECF No. 26.
Since the filing of the Recommended Ruling, Plaintiff has filed eight (8) briefs or objections to the Recommended Ruling. The Court has reviewed them all. None addresses Judge Spector's Recommended Ruling. The first, ECF No. 27, titled “Brief - How History Classes Failed Students & Destroyed World Economies thru “HAMAS & NATO” AKA “Beast Financial System - Criminal Gang Thugs Who Stole $$” is an exceedingly difficult to follow opinion piece that touches on Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, HAMAS, the history of antisemitism, the war in Ukraine and others. It goes without saying that this “brief” does not do anything to progress Plaintiff's claims as identified in the amended complaint.
The second, ECF No. 28, is titled “Motion: Here is a Fck Objection to Recommended Ruling to Dismiss & a Brief.” It begins, “Greetings to You Whores of Political Strategies working the United States Judicial System.” It is unclear to whom precisely this filing is directed, other than unnamed “whores,” but it proceeds to declare the “whores” guilty of the murder of Jesus. Thereafter, Plaintiff discusses the religion of Islam, members of the Muslim community, Islam in Nepal, Judaism, her opinions regarding current American politics, and a host of disjointed, though ultimately irrelevant allegations, vis a vis the Recommended Ruling.
The third, ECF No. 29, is titled “Brief: UNESCO Crimes in Nepal, U.S. Immigration, Economy Build Towns & Businesses at Borders Not Ugly Walls Nor Leve Border in U.S. as Ugly Empty Ghost Towns.” This pleading offers Plaintiff's opinion about “improving Immigration & Economy.” It includes discussion of many of the historical or current events previously discussed. It too is irrelevant to the claims advanced in the amended complaint which were the subject of the Recommended Ruling.
The fourth, ECF No. 30, is titled, “Brief: Neglected Restraining Order Case HHD-FA23-508-1243-S in Hartford Family Case Turned to New Abuse such as THREAT of EVICTION while already HOMELESS.” In this brief, Plaintiff recounts ongoing litigation in the state family and housing courts. She makes unintelligible reference to some of her prior claims of abuse as referenced in her other federal cases, but she does not, in any fashion, address the claims asserted in the amended complaint which are the subject of the Recommended Ruling.
The fifth, ECF No. 31, is titled, “Motion Objection to Dismiss & Ex Spouse, Police & Court Sought to Murder Again.” This document, again difficult to understand, appears to be an update as to Plaintiff's current situation vis a vis conflict with her ex-spouse, the police, possibly ongoing eviction efforts and her financial struggles. While it reiterates allegations from the initial complaint that MGM Grand had made false accusations of financial impropriety against her, it does not purport to identify any causes of action nor address the claims addressed in the Recommended Ruling.
The sixth, ECF No. 32 is titled, “Opposition to Dismiss #3 & Brief: Notice to Quit Must have Evicting Person's Name than Selected Property Information Used Suitable to Continue to Aid in Terror by Ex-Spouse.” Therein, Plaintiff asks the Court to “re-enforce (sic) as the Goddess ordered” the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Plaintiff includes a detailed history of her family court proceedings; an attempted eviction proceeding, what appear to be allegations of parental alienation; perceived misconduct by her ex-spouse and his lawyers, a “whore clerk” and a “thug judge,” due process violations in the state courts, and likely others. It does not however, identify any proposed named defendants or causes of action. It does not mention Dentist Reza or otherwise address the Recommended Ruling.
The seventh, ECF No. 33, is titled “Brief: My ex-Spouse & Colleagues Accused Me Delusional to Admit to Hospital to Discredit, To Not Have Jobs, To Made Homeless & Based on That Ordered Family Case.” Therein Plaintiff proclaims that she is a “Goddess as my Newah Culture of Living Goddess in Kathmandu.” She accuses her ex-spouse and others of fabricating claims that she is mentally ill in order to discredit her; render her homeless and unemployable. She attaches documents filed in the superior court, some of which appear to relate to involuntary committal proceedings with respect to which she requested a hearing. Other documents appear to be missing so the import of these records is unclear. However, this submission does not identify any cognizable claims nor address the claims which were the subject of the Recommended Ruling.
The eighth, ECF No. 34, is a short reiteration of her dissatisfaction with the family court proceedings and the accusations she has levied in connection therewith. It does not speak to the Recommended Ruling.
The Court finally observes that in each submission, Plaintiff identifies herself as “The Ruler Goddess” and the “47th The Ruler President of United States.” And given the oft untethered nature of the narratives advanced, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is unable or unwilling to comport her filings with the Court's directives. Regardless, despite multiple purported attempts, Plaintiff has not set forth cognizable claims.
Conclusion
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Spector's comprehensive Recommended Ruling concerning his initial review of the self-represented Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Recommended Ruling contains an accurate statement of the applicable law and a thoroughly reasoned analysis and application of that law to the circumstances presented here. The Plaintiff did object to the Recommended Ruling, but as detailed above her objections did not address the Recommended Ruling nor set forth cognizable claims. The Recommended Ruling therefore is Accepted, Adopted, and So Ordered. Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this matter.
SO ORDERED.