United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
SUNDARI K. PRASAD, Plaintiff,
FOXMORE PROCESS SERVERS, et al., Defendants.
HANNAH LAUCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
K. Prasad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. The matter is before the Court for review
of Prasad's Petitions for Rehearing (ECF Nos. 17, 18).
For the reasons set forth below, the Petitions for Rehearing
(ECF Nos. 17, 18) will be DENIED.
Memorandum Order entered on May 31, 2017, the Court directed
Prasad to file a particularized complaint. (ECF No. 10.) On
June 15, 2017, Prasad filed her Particularized Complaint.
(ECF No. 11.) By Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on May
9, 2018, the Court screened the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. Prasad v. Foxmore
Process Servers, No. 3;l7CV4l, 2018 WL 2144491, at
*l-*6 (E.D. Va. May 9, 2018), aff'd, 732
Fed.Appx. 210 (4th Cir. 2018), reh 'g denied
(Aug. 28, 2018). The Court dismissed the action for failure
to state a claim and as legally frivolous. Id. at
the Court had dismissed the action on May 9, 2018, the Court
received an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) from Prasad. On
May 17, 2018, the Court received a Notice of Appeal from
Prasad. (ECF No. 15.) On May 18, 2018, Prasad filed her
Petition for Rehearing. (ECF No. 17.) On May 21, 2018, the
Court received another Petition for Rehearing from Prasad.
(ECF No. 18.) On July 24, 2018, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit "reviewed the record and
f[ou]nd no reversible error" and affirmed the matter
"for the reasons stated by the district court."
Prasad, 732 Fed.Appx. at 210 (citation omitted).)
Petitions for Rehearing
Court will construe the Amended Complaint and the Petitions
for Rehearing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). 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., 771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991);
Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625,
626 (S.D.Miss. 1990)). Prasad does not explicitly address any
of the above recognized grounds for relief in her
submissions. 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."
May 9, 2018 Memorandum Opinion, the Court discussed at length
why Prasad claims under the Thirteenth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment were legally
flawed, frivolous, and failed to state a viable claim for
relief. Prasad v. Foxmore Process Servers, No.
3:17CV41, 2018 WL 2144491, at *3-*6 (E.D. Va. May 9, 2018),
aff'd, 732 Fed.Appx. 210 (4th Cir. 2018),
reh 'g denied (Aug. 28, 2018). For example, with
respect to due process, the Court noted that:
Assuming that Prasad intends to argue that Michael Foxmore
and Jessica Mazza failed to pick up and serve criminal
warrants on another person, such failure does not amount to a
violation of Prasad's constitutional rights. Prasad has
no constitutional right to, or any judicially cognizable
interest in, the prosecution of another person. See Linda
R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Further,
any assertion by Prasad that Michael Foxmore and Jessica
Mazza. failed to serve a criminal warrant is without
merit because both arrest and search warrants are only issued
to and executed by law enforcement. See Va. Code
Ann. § 19.2-56 (West 2018); id § 19.2-76.
Therefore, Prasad's procedural due process claim that
Michael Foxmore and Jessica Mazza failed to serve criminal
warrants will be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and
as legally frivolous.
Id. at *4. The Court also construed Prasad to allege
that she had a liberty interest in remaining free from
incarceration with which Foxmore and Mazza interfered by
failing to serve a warrant for initiating a civil action.
Id. at *5. The Court concluded that, "Prasad
has failed to state a violation of her constitutional right
to due process because it is legally impossible for a private
plaintiff in a civil action to be jailed solely for the
failure of a process server to properly serve a
defendant." Id. Neither Prasad's Petitions
for Rehearing nor the Amended Complaint cure the deficiencies
identified by the Court with respect to alleged denial of due
process claim. Similarly, neither the Petitions for Rehearing
nor the Amended Complaint cure the deficiencies identified by
the Court with respect to Prasad's claims that she was
denied equal protection and that her rights under the
Thirteenth Amendment were violated. Accordingly, Prasad's
Petitions for Rehearing (ECF No. 17, 18) will be DENIED.
appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.