IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 17, 2009
M.R. MIKKILINENI, PLAINTIFF(S),
GIBSON-THOMAS ENGINEERING COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANT(S).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
ORDER OF COURT
This case originated in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia wherein the plaintiff, M.R. Mikkilineni, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a pro se complaint. Plaintiff's complaint raises the same claims he has previously raised and re-raised, unsuccessfully, in this Court and in an action in the Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania, at No. 6137 of 2001. See Mikkilineni v. Gibson-Thomas Eng. Co., No. 04-cv-0491, 2009 WL 1598407, at *1 (W.D. Pa. June 5, 2009) ("This Court will not permit plaintiff to circumvent this Court's directives by this flagrant maneuver."). Chief District Judge Royce C. Lamberth for the District of Columbia granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and transferred this action, sua sponte, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, stating, inter alia, as follows: "Of particular importance is the likelihood that plaintiff opted to file this action in this district for the express purpose of avoiding the consequences of Judge Schwab's injunction order." See Transfer Order, (Doc. No. 5).
Inasmuch as the caption of the complaint filed in that Court erroneously designated the court of filing as the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the contents of the complaint mirror those of his previously filed complaint in this Court, District Judge Royce Lambert's observation is quite accurate. As before, Mr. Mikkilineni's attempted end-run to the District of Columbia is a blatant attempt to circumvent this Court's prior order that the Clerk of Court "not accept any pro se complaint or other initial pleading from this plaintiff which names any of the defendants named [in that action] as defendants or which is related in any way with [plaintiff's] now defunct engineering company" without first obtaining leave of Court. Mikkilinenni, 2009 WL 1598407, at * 1. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's "Motion to Assign this Case for a Fair Hearing before a Judge other than the biased Mr. Schwab" (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint at Civil Action No. 09-1026 is DISMISSED sua sponte.
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.