Prasad v. City of Richmond et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 06/15/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
SUNDARIK.PRASAD,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No.3:17CV39
CITY OF RICHMOND,et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Sundari K.Prasad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.' The matter is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)and 1915A.
L Preliminarv Review
Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act("PLRA")this Court must dismiss any
action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines the action(1)"is frivolous" or(2)"fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The
first standard includes claims based upon "an indisputably meritless legal theory," or claims
where the "factual contentions are clearly baseless." Clay v. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417,427(E.D.
Va. 1992)(quoting Ve/7zifce v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,327(1989)), ajfd,36 F.3d 1091 (4th Cir.
'The 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.
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?