Prasad v. Vick et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 12/05/2016. Clerk mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff. (nbrow)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

~

~

~

OEC~5?

---

[E
'.-,

:

ffl11
I/!

1/j

!, ..J; I
1 ·--

CLEFlK, U.S. Di.","i ,;·;:;--r-cui~::=n
RICHl.':Ct:il. V.£1

SUNDARI K. PRASAD,

~------------'

Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16CV40

MONICA K. VICK, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action. 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 prose 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." Beaudet!
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 *l (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, Plaintiff's 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 At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

1

That statute provides, in pertinent part:

Every person who, under color of any statute . . . of any
State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law ....
42 u.s.c. § 1983.
2

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 different types of
relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Plaintiff fails to identify the basis for the Court's jurisdiction
and fails to provide a short and plain statement of her claim.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED, within fourteen (14) days of the date
of entry hereof, to particularize her complaint in conformance with the following
directions and in the order set forth below:
a.
At the very top of the particularized pleading,
Plaintiff is directed to place the following caption in all capital
letters "PARTICULARIZED COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL ACTION
NUMBER 3: 16CV40."
b.
The first paragraph of the particularized pleading
must contain a list of defendants. Thereafter, in the body of the
particularized complaint, Plaintiff must set forth legibly, in
separately numbered paragraphs, a short statement of the facts
giving rise to his claims for relief. Thereafter, in separately
captioned sections, Plaintiff must clearly identify each civil right
violated. Under each section, the Plaintiff must list each defendant
purportedly liable under that legal theory and explain why she
believes each defendant is liable to her. Such explanation should
reference the specific numbered factual paragraphs in the body of
the particularized complaint that support that assertion. Plaintiff
shall also include a prayer for relief.
c.
The particularized pleading will supplant the prior
complaints. The particularized pleading must stand or fall of its
own accord. Plaintiff may not reference statements in the prior
complaints.
Plaintiffs particularized complaint must also comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 8(a). FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOREGOING
DIRECTIONS WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a) provides that: "A party asserting a
claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or
alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party."
Nevertheless, when a plaintiff seeks to bring multiple claims against multiple
3

defendants, he must also satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 which
provides:
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one action as
defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or
in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;
and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise
in the action.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). "Rule 20 does not authorize a plaintiff to add claims
'against different parties [that] present[ ] entirely different factual and legal
issues."' Sykes v. Bayer Pharm. Corp., 548 F. Supp. 2d 208, 218 (E.D. Va. 2008)
(alterations in original) (quoting Lovelace v. Lee, No. 7:03cv00395, 2007 WL
3069660, at *1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 21, 2007)). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Particularized
Complaint must also comport with the joinder requirements. If Plaintiff fails to
submit an appropriate Particularized Complaint that comports with the joinder
requirements, the Court will drop all defendants not properly joined with the first
named defendant.
(ECF No. 62, at 1-5 (alterations in original).)
On October 31, 2016, the Court received from Plaintiff a letter that the Court construes as
a Particularized Complaint. ("Particularized Complaint," ECF No. 69.) Plaintiff states: "The
following is what-MAGISTRATE YOUNG- requested. All civil rights violations listed
w/addressed who violated what; therefore, I expect everyone to stay on this suit. NO
DISMISSAL." (Id at 1 (capitalization and punctuation corrected).) The Particularized
Complaint is nothing more than a list of eighty defendants. Each defendant has a series of codes
listed next to his or her name that correspond to a list of purported types of discrimination in a
"Key." (See id. at 2.) Plaintiff has failed to comply with the directives of the Court in its
October 11, 2016 Memorandum Order. Plaintiffs Particularized Complaint fails to follow the
Court's directives pertaining to the form of the particularized complaint, fails to identify the
constitutional right violated by each defendant's conduct, fails to provide each defendant with
fair notice of the facts against him or her, and fails to comport with Federal Rules of Civil

4

Procedure 8(a) and 20. Although Plaintiffs prose status makes her "entitled to some
deference," it does not relieve her of her duty to abide by the rules and orders of this Court.

Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has refused
repeatedly to comply with the Court's directives. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff also requests that the Court refund her filing fee. (ECF No. 70, at 3.) However,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(l) requires that "if a prisoner brings a civil action ... the prisoner shall be
required to pay the full amount of the filing fee." 28 U.S.C. § 185(b)(l). Plaintiff lacks
entitlement to a refund of her filing fee. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request to refund the filing fee
(ECF No. 70) is DENIED.
Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff again requests the appointment of counsel (see ECF
No. 70, at 1), her request is DENIED for the reasons previously stated by the Magistrate Judge.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

M.HannahL
United States Di

Date: DEC 05 2016
Richmond, Virginia

5

1ct Judge