Prasad v. Massey-Taylor et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 09/29/2017. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

~SEP

SUNDARI K. PRASAD,
Plaintiff,

.

2:9a

..
#

v.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV66

SHAKITA MASSEY-TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding prose and informa pauperis, submitted this civil
action and filed a particularized complaint. 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.
Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on July 21, 2017, the Court provided
detailed instructions on how to particularize her complaint and directed her to submit a second
particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. (ECF No. 12.)
The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the second particularized complaint would
result in the dismissal of the action. (Id. at 2.)
Instead of filing a second particularized complaint, on July 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a

1

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.

•

•

-

Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (ECF No. 14.) By Memorandum Order entered on August
2, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's 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. 15, 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.) More than eleven
(11) days have elapsed since the entry of the August 2, 2017 Memorandum Order. Plaintiff
failed to submit a second particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the August 2, 2017
Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

Date:

M. Hannah Lau
United States D t ·c

SEP 2 9 2017

Richmond, Virginia

2