Prasad v. Washington Metro Police Dept. et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 02/28/2018. Copy of Memorandum Opinion mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )

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

L
FEb 2 8 2018

SUNDARI K. PRASAD,
Plaintiff,

CLERK, U.S. DiSTfliCT COURT
RICHMOND. VA

V.

Civil Action No. 3:I7CV140

WASHINGTON METRO POLICE DEPT, et al..
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sundari K. Prasad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this

civil action pursuant to Bivens} By Memorandum Order entered on October 30, 2017, the Court
directed Prasad to file a particularized complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Thereafter, Prasad filed a

Particularized Complaint (ECF No. 15), which 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 fnvolous" 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." Clayv. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Va. 1992) (quoting
Neifzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)), qfd, 36 F.3d 1091 (4th Cir. 1994). The second
standard is the familiarstandard for a motionto dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
"A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint;
importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the

' Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1971).

J
:J