Prasad et al v. Ellis et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 08/23/2018. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff Prasad) (smej, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
SUNDARI K.PRASAD,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:16CV1005
V.
SOT. ELLIS,
a/.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Sundari K. Prasad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this action, and at least
fifty other civil actions over the prior two years. Prasad's actions have been dismissed as
frivolous and malicious, or for failure to state a claim, or because she has failed to follow the
directives of the Court. Prasad's many actions have strained the resources ofthe Court.
Litigants have an obligation to '"Stop, Think, Investigate and Research' before filing
papers either to initiate a suit or to conduct the litigation." Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp., 835 F.2d 479,
482(3d Cir. 1987). Prasad has ignored this obligation and flooded the Court with her inchoate
claims for relief.
Additionally, Prasad has engaged in a consistent pattern of disregarding the directives of
the Court. For example, the Court has informed Prasad that she may not tack on allegations or
defendants to a complaint through partial amendments, but must file a comprehensive amended
complaint. Prasad has ignored that directive. Moreover, because ofthe nature of her rambling
complaints, it has been necessary for the Court to direct Prasad to file a particularized complaint
in each action she has filed. Those particularized complaints are often no better than the original
complaint. Even after filing a particularized complaint, and despite being repeatedly directed not
to do so, Prasad continued to submit mere amendments to tack on claims or defendants which
she may not do. As the Court has explained to Prasad ad nauseum, although Prasad'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 ofthis Court. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93,96(4th Cir. 1989)(citation
omitted). Prasad has refused repeatedly to comply with the Court's directives. Further, many of
the claims in Prasad's cases are repetitive of claims made in prior actions.
More recently, because Prasad has not liked the disposition of her actions, Prasad has
begun to name the undersigned as a defendant, simply because of the adverse decision. Prasad
believes that naming the undersigned as a defendant requires recusal of the undersigned.
However, that is simply not the case. An unfavorable ruling fails to constitute a valid basis for
recusal or a judicial bias claim. United States v. Williamson, 213 F. App's 235,237-38 (4th Cir.
2007)(citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,555 (1994)). Rather, Prasad's addition of the
undersigned as a defendant in both pending and closed civil actions is both abusive and done in
bad faith. Another judge ofthis Court has also found that Prasad's attempt to have the
undersigned recuse herselffor this reason was taken in bad faith. See Prasad v. Gothic Beauty
Magazine, No. 3:17CV446(E.D. Va. May 4, 2018), ECF Nos. 15, 16.
By Memorandum Order entered on June 28,2018, the Court directed Prasad, within
fourteen(14) days ofthe date of entry thereof, to submit a certificate of compliance in order to
assist in monitoring Prasad's repetitious and multiplicitous litigation. The Court warned Prasad
that the failure to submit an appropriate certificate of compliance would result in the summary
dismissal of this action.
More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the June 28, 2018
Memorandum Order and Prasad has not responded. Accordingly, the action will be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Is/
M. Hannah Lauck
iiir on onio
Date: Aub Cj ZUlo
Richmond, Virginia
t
United States District Judl
Ju&gib
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?