Prasad v. Hendrix et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 10/26/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFVIRGINIA
Richmond Division

SUNDARI K. PRASAD,

r.:J
~

1
if

f

0

r,

1

v.

OCT 2 6 2017

Civil Action No. 3:17CV40

HAMIL TON L. HENDRIX, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceedingpro se and informapauperis, submitted this civil
action. On her own initiative, Plaintiff filed a Particularized Complaint. (ECF No. 12.)
However, in her Particularized Complaint, Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support a
viable claim under 42 U.S .C. § 1983 1 against each listed defendant, and failed to comply with
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18(a) and 20. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on
July 21, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a second particularized complaint within
fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 13.) The Court warned Plaintiff that
the failure to submit the second particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the
action. (Id. at 3.)

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.

1

:.

i·lj

CLERK, U.3 L'•·' , ,·11G'i COURl
RICHfJ,OllD, VA

Plaintiff,

1

~.\\

I~ -~'_ _l_'.--'-=-·1: \I

Instead of a second particularized complaint, on July 28, 2017, the Court received a
Motion for Appointment of Counsel from Plaintiff. (ECF No. 15.) By Memorandum Order
entered on August 2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel and
ordered her to file her second particularized complaint within eleven (11) days of the date of
entry thereof. (ECF No. 16, at 1-2.) The Court again warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit
the second particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. (Id. at 2.)
Again, instead of a second particularized complaint, on September 5, 2017, the Court
received a letter from Plaintiff wherein she requests the Court "update [her] on the status of [this]
case." (ECF No. 17, at 1.) By Memorandum Order entered on September 19, 2017, the Court
advised Plaintiff that she must file her second particularized complaint within eleven (11) days of
the date of entry thereof or else the action will be dismissed without prejudice.
On September 26, 2017, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff instructing the Court to
remove certain defendants from her original particularized complaint. (ECF No. 20, at 1.) On
September 29, 2017, the Court received from Plaintiff an "Addendum to Particularized
Complaint." (ECF No. 21, at 1.) This Addendum lists a different group of Defendants from her
original Complaint, or her Particularized Complaint, and indicates that she is "explicating a bit
better-please add to Part. Complaint." (Id at 1.) Plaintiff has failed to comply with the
directives of the Court in its July 21, 2017 Memorandum Order. The Court has provided
Plaintiff with several opportunities to file a second particularized complaint well beyond the
fourteen days allotted by the July 21, 2017 Memorandum Order and Plaintiff simply refuses to
do so. 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 of this Court Ballard v. Carlson, 882
F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has refused repeatedly to comply with the

2

Court's directives in this action. 2 Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: 10 --2~ - t
Richmond, Virginia

7

2

Plaintiff has engaged in a pattern of refusing to follow the directives of the Court. See,
e.g., Prasad v. Judge M Hannah Lauck, No. 3: l 7CV42 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2017), ECF Nos. 17,
18; Prasad v. Chesterfield Village Apts, No. 3: l 6CV898 (E.D. Va. June 9, 2017), ECF Nos. 13,
14; Prasadv. Vick, No. 3:16CV40, 2017 WL 1091785, at *1-4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2017), appeal
dismissed686 F. App'x 156, 156 (4th Cir. 2017).
3