Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Prasad v. Vick
United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
March 22, 2017
SUNDARI K. PRASAD, Plaintiff,
MONICA K. VICK, et al., Defendants.
Hannah Lauck United States District Judge.
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on December 5, 2016, the
Court dismissed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without
prejudice because Plaintiff "refused repeatedly to
comply with the Court's directives." (ECF No. 75, at
5.) In its Memorandum Opinion, the Court explained:
By Memorandum Order entered on October 11, 2016, the Court
explained the following to Plaintiff:
By Memorandum Order entered on March 25, 2016, the Court
discussed how "[s]ince the time Plaintiff filed the
initial Complaint, she has inundated the Court with no less
than eight letters, in which she attempts to spackle names
and allegations to her Complaint, to move a state custody
case to this Court ..., and to add various state court
documents, grievances, and correspondence to her pending
action." (ECF No. 16, at ¶ 4.) The Court denied her
requests and attempts to amend. (See id.)
Undeterred, Plaintiff submitted at least eleven more letters
and attempts to amend before she was granted in forma
By Memorandum Order entered on May 27, 2016, the Court filed
the action. (ECF No. 33.) In that Memorandum Order, the Court
Despite being warned that the Court would not consider
letters and motions until she was granted in forma
pauperis status, Plaintiff has continued to inundate the
Court with letters and purported amendments. Plaintiff also
insists that the Clerk provide her with a copy of the docket
reflecting the various names she has attempted to add.
(See ECF No. 23, at 1.) In her newest submissions,
she continues to attempt to spackle names and allegations to
her Complaint, and to add various state court documents,
grievances, and correspondence to her pending action.
Litigants may not spackle new allegations or defendants onto
the original complaint. See Williams v.
Wilkerson, 90 F.R.D. 168, 169-70 (E.D. Va. 1981). When a
plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint, "a copy of
the proposed amended pleading, and not simply the proposed
amendment, must be attached to the motion." Id.
at 170. Plaintiff has not submitted a copy of her proposed
amended complaint. To the extent that she requests to amend
her complaint with these various submissions, her requests
are DENIED. No further action will be taken on these letters
(Id. ¶ 5.) After this warning, Plaintiff has
continued to disregard the directives of the Court and has
submitted at least eighteen letters and "Notices"
attempting to improperly tack on or remove defendants, add
vague claims, and submit purported evidence that makes little
to no sense.
In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of
state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of
a right conferred by a law of the United States. See Dowe
v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145
F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Courts must liberally construe pro se civil rights
complaints in order to address constitutional deprivations.
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978). Nevertheless, "[p]rinciples requiring generous
construction of pro se complaints are not... without
limits." Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d
1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Neither "inanimate objects
such as buildings, facilities, and grounds" nor
collective terms such as "staff or "agency"
are persons amenable to suit under § 1983. Lamb v.
Library People Them, No. 3:13-8- CMC-BHH, 2013 WL
526887, at *2-3 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2013) (citations omitted)
(internal quotations omitted) (explaining the plaintiffs
"use of the collective term 'people them' as a
means to name a defendant in a § 1983 claim does not
adequately name a 'person'"); see Preval v.
Reno, No. 99-6950, 2000 WL 20591, at *1 (4th Cir. 2000)
(citations omitted) (affirming district court's
determination that Piedmont Regional Jail is not a
"person" under § 1983). Moreover, in her
current Complaint, Plaintiff does not identify the particular
constitutional right that was violated by the defendants'
conduct. In addition, Plaintiffs current allegations also
fail to provide each defendant with fair notice of the facts
and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests.
See Bell Ail. Corp, v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
Plaintiffs current Complaint also fails to comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). That rule provides:
(a) Claim for Relief, A pleading that states
a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the
court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has
jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief
in the alternative or ...
Buy This Entire Record For