Prasad v. Chesterfield Village Apts et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 06/09/2017. Copy of mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
SUNDARI KARMA PRASAD,
- 9 20!7
1·,•,r:·,; F_-1, VA
Civil Action No. 3:16CV898
CHESTERFIELD VILLAGE APTS, et al.,
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action. In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 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). In her current
Complaint, Plaintiff does not identify the particular constitutional right that was violated by the
defendants' conduct. 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)). In
addition, Plaintiffs Complaint also fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on May 11, 2017, the Court directed
Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry
thereof. The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the particularized complaint would
result in the dismissal of the action.
More than fourteen ( 14) days have elapsed since the entry of the May 11, 2017
Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond
to the May 11, 2017 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: JU~ O 20'1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?