Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Prasad v. Vick

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

March 22, 2017

SUNDARI K. PRASAD, Plaintiff,
v.
MONICA K. VICK, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          M. Hannah Lauck United States District Judge.

         By 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 pauperis status.
By Memorandum Order entered on May 27, 2016, the Court filed the action. (ECF No. 33.) In that Memorandum Order, the Court stated
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 and submissions.
(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, [1] a 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 (1957)).
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 support;
(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 $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.