Prasad v. Vick et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 03/22/2017. (mailed copy to pro se Plaintiff) (nbrow)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
SUNDARI K. PRASAD,

11r·~J

.r

~

[E

MAR 2 2 20l7

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:16CV40

v.
MONICA K. VICK, et al,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

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
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

to suit under § 1983. Lamb v. Library People Them, No. 3:13-8CMC-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 At!. 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 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
3

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 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
4

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 YOUNGrequested. 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. Plaintiff's
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 Procedure 8(a) and 20. Although Plaintiff's pro se 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. Ballardv. 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.
(ECF No. 75, at 1-5.).
After the Court dismissed the action, on December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document
entitled both "Particularized Complaint" and "Written Notice of Appeal." (ECF No. 78, at 1.)
The Court construes this filing as a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
("Rule 59(e) Motion"). Prasad argues that she is "paring down 'the list' (of 80?!) [defendants]
that you falsely state that is on this case .... " (Rule 59(e) Mot. 2.)2 Plaintiff lists approximately
sixteen defendants and once again provides vague allegations of discrimination. Plaintiff then
indicates that she ''tr[ies] to break it down." (Id at 4.) However, she provides a rambling and

2

The Court corrects the capitalization and removes emphasis in the quotes from
Plaintiff's submissions.
5

conclusory description of how "all discriminated against me on the basis of sex, race ... religion,
color, mental status .... " (Id)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized three grounds
for reliefunder 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)). Plaintiff fails to
demonstrate that the Court committed a clear error of law or that reopening her case is necessary
to prevent manifest injustice. Nor does Plaintiff demonstrate any other basis for granting Rule
59(e) relief. See Williams v. Virginia, 524 F. App'x 40, 41 (4th Cir. 2013) ("The reconsideration
of a judgment after entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." (citing

Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'! Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998))).
To the extent that Plaintiff intended her filing to be a Particularized Complaint, she fails
to correct the deficiencies identified by the Court in its Orders or in the Memorandum Opinion
and Order dismissing the action. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 78) will
be DENIED.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Isl
M. Hannah Lauck
United States District

Date: MAR 2 2 2017
Richmond, Virginia
3

On December 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a letter with yet another§ 1983 complaint. (ECF
Nos. 80, 80-1.) Once again the complaint lists numerous defendants but 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
Procedure 8(a) and 20.

6