Annamalai, Annamalai v. Emmerich, Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANNAMALAI ANNAMALAI,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN EMMERICH,
Respondent.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-205-jdp
ANNAMALAI ANNAMALAI,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN EMMERICH,
Respondent.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-533-jdp
Petitioner 	Annamalai 	Annamalai, 	proceeding 	without 	counsel, 	has 	filed 	related
emergency motions to vacate final judgments entered in case nos. 24-cv-205-jdp and 25-cv-
533-jdp. For the reasons explained below, the court will deny both motions.
BACKGROUND
In the ’205 case, Annamalai brought an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking restoration of good-conduct time based on allegations that
Bureau of Prison officials denied him procedural due process during disciplinary proceedings.
During those proceedings, Annamalai was found guilty of using the mail to file two fraudulent
bankruptcy petitions against Teresa Louis and Clifford J. White. Louis was a victim and witness
in Annamalai’s federal criminal case, and White was a former director of the Trustee Program
Case: 3:24-cv-00205-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 1 of 6

2
for the U.S. Department of Justice. The disciplinary hearing officer found that Annamalai
falsely declared in the bankruptcy petitions that Louis and White owed him lofty debts and
had agreed to those debts. While the amended petition in the ’205 case was pending,
Annamalai brought a petition in the ’533 case, seeking restoration of good-conduct time based
on allegations that BOP officials denied him procedural due process during a separate
disciplinary proceeding.
On January 14, 2026, I accepted Annamalai’s notice of voluntary dismissal in the ’533
case and closed that case. Dkt. 15 in the ’533 case. Two days later, Annamalai moved to
withdraw his notice of voluntary dismissal. Dkt. 16 in the ’533 case. The motion to withdraw
was dated January 11, 2026.
On January 30, 2026, I issued an order in the ’205 case that contained several
dispositive rulings. Dkt. 57 in the ’205 case. First, I denied the amended petition in the ’205
case on the merits, concluding that the disciplinary record definitively showed that Annamalai
received all the process he was due. Alternatively, I dismissed both the amended petition in the
’205 case and the petition in the ’533 case as a sanction for Annamalai’s dishonesty. I found
that Annamalai intentionally made a false statement in the ’205 case to attempt to gain a
litigation 	advantage. 	Annamalai 	stated 	that 	a 	purported 	“equitable 	order 	of 	specific
performance” entered in a Vigo County, Indiana case in November 2020 established that Louis
and White owed him enormous debts. But I found that the “equitable order of specific
performance” could not have established those debts because the events in the Vigo County
case that Annamalai contended established the debts occurred no earlier than several months
after Annamalai attempted to file the bankruptcy petitions. Before dismissing the ’533 case, I
granted Annamalai’s request to withdraw his notice of voluntary dismissal.
Case: 3:24-cv-00205-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 2 of 6

3
In the ’205 case, I also barred Annamalai from filing any cases in this district for a
period of two years, allowing him to ask the court to lift that bar after the period expired. I
based that ruling on Annamalai’s dishonesty in the ’205 case and his extensive history of
litigation abuse across state and federal courts, which included filing meritless and frivolous
actions in this court.
On February 2, 2026, in the ’533 case, Annamalai moved to withdraw his previous
request to withdraw the notice of voluntary dismissal. Dkt. 21 in the ’533 case. The motion
was dated January 26, 2026. I denied the motion. Dkt. 22 in the ’533 case. I gave Annamalai
the benefit of the prison mailbox rule and deemed the motion to be filed on January 26, which
was before I dismissed the ’533 case on January 30. But I denied the motion, concluding that
the discretionary relief of withdrawing the previous request to withdraw the notice of voluntary
dismissal would be inappropriate in the circumstances. I explained that granting that relief
would result in voluntary dismissal of the ’533 case and encourage even more gamesmanship
and vexatious litigation from Annamalai, which would defeat the purpose of imposing a severe
sanction.
ANALYSIS
Annamalai brings emergency motions to vacate final judgments entered in the ’205 and
’533 cases. Annamalai has sought this relief within 28 days of the entry of those final
judgments, so I will treat the motions as requests for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e). To prevail, Annamalai “must present either newly discovered evidence
or establish a manifest error of law or fact.” Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th
Cir. 2000).
Case: 3:24-cv-00205-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 3 of 6

4
I begin with Annamalai’s motion in the ’205 case. First, Annamalai contends that my
finding that he intentionally made a false statement was erroneous. From what I can discern,
Annamalai explains that he was not arguing in the amended petition that the Vigo County
“equitable order of specific performance” created the debts that he asserted in the bankruptcy
petitions against Louis and White. Rather, the argument goes, Annamalai was citing that order
as proof that the debts were valid, even though the order came into existence well after he
brought the bankruptcy petitions.
Annamalai’s first contention does not show any error, let alone clear error, in my finding
that he intentionally made a dishonest statement in his petition and other filings. Annamalai
cited the “equitable order of specific performance” in his amended petition and brief in support
to show his “factual innocence” of the disciplinary charges and that he acted in good faith when
he brought the bankruptcy petitions in August 2016. See Dkt. 7 in the ’205 case, at 2–3.
Similarly, Annamalai suggested in his reply brief that Louis and White had “already [been]
judicially found” liable for the debts when he brought the bankruptcy petitions. See Dkt. 44 in
the ’205 case, at 5. But Annamalai did not bring the Vigo County case until April 2017, and
the “equitable order of specific performance” was not entered until November 2020. That order
could not have created those debts. Annamalai made substantially similar statements in his
disciplinary proceedings about the effect of purported discovery requests in two federal cases,
and the disciplinary hearing officer found those statements to be dishonest. Dkt. 57 in the ’205
case, at 12. Also, the “equitable order of specific performance,” which another court has
described as nonsensical, was entered in a case to which Louis and White are not parties.
See id. at 3–4, 12. It’s clear that, after he brought the bankruptcy petitions, Annamalai engaged
Case: 3:24-cv-00205-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 4 of 6

5
in continued abusive litigation in federal and state courts to attempt to justify the outlandish
debts that he asserted against Louis and White.
Second, Annamalai contends in his motion for reconsideration in the ’205 case that he
had filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in that case on January 26, 2026, four days before the
court entered its final judgment. See Dkt. 59-1 at 1–2. The idea is that because Annamalai had
dismissed the ’205 case before I entered final judgment, that judgment is erroneous. To start,
Annamalai could not have voluntarily dismissed this case without my approval because, by
January 26, respondent had answered the amended petition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)–(2).
Annamalai previously tried to voluntarily dismiss the ’205 case, albeit unsuccessfully, so he was
aware of this rule. See Dkts. 33, 36, and 38 in the ’205 case.
But this contention has a deeper flaw. The purported notices of voluntary dismissal are
unreliable because the court never received and docketed them. Annamalai vaguely alleges that
prison officials interfered with this mail, but the court has received his other filings, including
those sent from his new prison in California. See Dkt. 56 and Dkt. 59. In view of Annamalai’s
history of dishonesty and abusive litigation, I find that he created the purported notices of
voluntary dismissal after the fact to try to circumvent the court’s final judgment in the ’205
case. This continued dishonesty confirms my determination that the harsh sanctions of
dismissal with prejudice and a filing bar were warranted.
Third, Annamalai contends that imposing sanctions without giving him notice and an
opportunity to respond was erroneous. Annamalai is correct that, before exercising its inherent
authority to sanction misconduct, a court generally “must notify the litigant of the specific
misdeed that is the basis for possible sanction and allow the litigant an opportunity to
respond.” See Ayoubi v. Dart, 640 F. App’x 524, 528 (7th Cir. 2016). But this error is subject
Case: 3:24-cv-00205-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 5 of 6

6
to harmless-error analysis. See id. I have now addressed the arguments that Annamalai contends
show that he did not intentionally make a false statement to the court. The initial lack of notice
and the opportunity to respond are harmless. See id.
That leaves Annamalai’s motion for reconsideration in the ’533 case. Annamalai
contends that dismissal of that case as a sanction was erroneous because, if given the benefit
of the prison mailbox rule, he had moved to withdraw his request to withdraw the notice of
voluntary dismissal before I dismissed that case. I already considered and rejected this
argument. Dkt. 22 in the ’533 case. Annamalai expresses mere disagreement with that ruling,
but he doesn’t explain how it’s erroneous. Again, whether to grant a motion to withdraw a prior
motion is discretionary; Annamalai is not automatically entitled to that relief. In the
circumstances, granting that relief would not have been appropriate; it would have encouraged
even more gamesmanship and vexatious litigation from Annamalai. Annamalai has a pattern
of filing meritless lawsuits and then seeking to voluntarily dismiss them, as discussed above.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Annamalai Annamalai’s motions for reconsideration
(see Dkt. 59 in 24-cv-204-jdp and Dkt. 24 in 25-cv-533-jdp) are DENIED.
Entered March 31, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00205-jdp Document #: 60 Filed: 03/31/26 Page 6 of 6