Prasad v. Washington DC Police Dept. et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 05/4/2018. Memorandum Opinion mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )

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

SUNDARIK.PRASAD,

ri FmTu.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND^

Plaintiff,
V.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV74

INVESTIGATOR BERGER,e/a/.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Snndari 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.
I. 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). 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
Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319,327(1989)), affd,36 F.3d 1091 (4th Cir. 1994). The second
standard is the familiar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

'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

42U.S.C.§ 1983.