United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
SUNDARI K. PRASAD, Plaintiff,
GOTHIC BEAUTY MAGAZINE, et al, Defendants.
A. Gibney, Jr. United States District Judge.
K. Prasad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
filed this civil rights action. By Memorandum Opinion and
Order entered on April 18, 2018, the Court dismissed the
action as legally frivolous and for failure to state claim.
(See ECF Nos. 11, 12.) The matter is now before the
Court on Prasad's "Motion to Rehear" that will
be construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) ("Rule 59(e) Motion, " ECF No.
See MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S Pines, 532 F.3d 269,
277-78 (4th Cir. 2008) (stating that filings made within
twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment are construed
as Rule 59(e) motions (citing Dove v. CODESCO, 569
F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978))).
of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy
which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v.
Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.
1998) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e):
"(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial;
or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d
1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v.
Koppers Co., Ill. F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991);
Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625,
626 (S.D.Miss. 1990)).
does not explicitly address any of the above recognized
grounds for relief in her Rule 59(e) Motion. However, the
Court construes Prasad to argue that the Court should grant
her Rule 59(e) Motion "to correct a clear error of law
or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson, 994
F.2d at 1081. Prasad contends that, because the Honorable M.
Hannah Lauck recused herself in one of Prasad's many
civil actions filed in this Court, that she necessarily must
recuse herself in this action. Prasad points to no persuasive
authority that would support her position, and contrary to
her suggestion, that is simply not required. The Judge Lauck
recused herself from presiding over the action, Prasad v.
State of Va., No. 3:17CV686 (E.D. Va.), ECF No. 16,
because Prasad named Judge Lauck as a defendant in that
also argues that in the April 6, 2018 Memorandum Order,
see id., Judge Lauck instructed the Clerk to
reassign all of Prasad's pending actions to a different
judge. (See ECF No. 13-2, at 1.) This is simply not
true and reflects a misreading of the Memorandum Order by
Prasad. See Prasad v. State of Va., No. 3:17CV686
(E.D. Va.), ECF No. 16.
the bar for recusal is high, as "courts have only
granted recusal motions in cases involving particularly
egregious conduct." Belue v. Leventhal, 640
F.3d 567, 573 (4th Cir. 2011). Contrary to Prasad's
belief, unfavorable "judicial rulings alone almost never
constitute a valid basis for bias" or a valid reason to
demand recusal of a judge. Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (citation omitted). Prasad has not
demonstrated that Judge Lauck harbors any bias against Prasad
or any circumstance where the impartiality of Judge Lauck
might reasonably be questioned. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 144,  455. Accordingly, the Court discerns no
clear error of law or manifest injustice in the dismissal of
Prasad's Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Rule 59(e)
Motion (ECF No. 13) will be DENIED.
2, 2018, the Court received a new Complaint from Prasad in
this closed action. (ECF No. 14.) Prasad suggests that the
Magistrate Judge should provide advice on whether this new
Complaint should be added to an entirely different case.
(Id. at 1.) The Court will not provide Prasad with
legal advice. Moreover, the Court dismissed the instant
action because her claims were legally frivolous, and her
new, rambling, nearly incomprehensible Complaint fails to
alter that conclusion. For, the first time in this new
Complaint, Prasad also names Judge Lauck as Defendant.
Prasad's attempt to add Judge Lauck as a defendant is
abusive and taken in bad faith simply because Prasad does not
like the disposition of her meritless action. No further
action will be taken on Prasad's Complaint in this closed
appropriate Order shall issue.
 The Court employs the pagination
assigned to Prasad's Rule 59(e) Motion by the CM/ECF
 The statute provides, in relevant
Whenever a party to a proceeding in a district court
makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the
judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias
or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse
party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but
another judge shall be assigned to hear such
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons
for the belief that bias or prejudice exists .... A party may
file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be
accompanied by a certificate of counsel of ...