Prasad v. Norris et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 06/09/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
JU~ -9 20l7
SUNDARI K. PRASAD,
CLERK, U.S. DISTR1CT COURl
Civil Action No. 3:17CV006
SANDRA C. NORRIS, et al.,
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action. By Memorandum Order entered on May 11, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to
file a particularized complaint. The Court explained:
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 114 7, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Nevertheless, "[p]rinciples requiring
generous construction of prose 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 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
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.
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, 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Plaintiff's 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
(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
(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
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:
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
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.
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
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. 4l(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
(2) Defendants. Persons . . . may be joined in one action as
(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;
(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 *l (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
Moreover, Plaintiff has many actions pending in this Court which has
caused strain on the resources of the Clerk's Office. Plaintiff may not submit one
single response to comport with the directives of the Court in more than one
individual case. Instead, Plaintiff must submit a separate response for each
individual civil action. If Plaintiff attempts to submit one response listing a
group of case numbers, the Court will only docket that submission in the firstlisted civil action on that submission. The Court will not consider the submission
as a response in any other civil action.
(ECF No. 11, at 1-4 (alterations in original).)
More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the May 11, 2017
Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint. On June 5, 2017,
after the fourteen-day-period expired, Plaintiff filed a Letter entitled, "3: 17CV 119 & 3: 17cv006
joinder request." (ECF No. 12.) In sum, Plaintiff states: "It has come to my attention that these
two cases can be joindered - therefore I will- if you need a Particularized Complaint on them
both - joinder them together - so please be aware that is what I am working on as of this date (5/31/17) and I will have that to you in a few days." Plaintiff fails to offer any legal authority
that would allow her to "joinder" cases together.2 In addition, the case that Plaintiff wishes to
"joinder" with this case is before a different United States District Judge because Plaintiff named
the undersigned as a defendant in that action. See Prasad v. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation, No. 3: l 7CVI 19 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 8, 2017). The Court also notes that the
defendants in this action are entirely different than those named in Prasad v. The Federal Bureau
ofInvestigation. Thus, the Court will not join or consolidate the two actions.
Moreover, Plaintiff has once again failed to comply with the directives of this Court. Cf
Prasadv. Vick, No. 3:16cv40, 2017 WL 1091785 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2017), ajf'd, --- F. App'x ---, 2017 WL 1437238 (4th Cir. Apr. 24, 2017). 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
ofthis Court. Ballardv. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
To the extent that Plaintiff believes that this action is the same or similar to another civil
action, Plaintiff should file an amended complaint in the remaining open action that includes all
claims and defendants that she wishes to raise claims against.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
J N 09
The Court assumes Plaintiff desires to consolidate the actions. Plaintiff offers no
persuasive legal authority that would allow her to do so. In addition, Plaintiffs request was not
made by motion, and it lacks the required written brief setting forth a concise statement of the
facts, supporting reasons, and a citation of authorities as required by Rule 7(F) of the Local Civil
Rules for the Eastern District of Virginia. E.D. Va. Loe. Civ. R. 7(F).
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?