Prasad v. Washington Metro Police Dept. et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 09/10/2018. (Copy mailed to Plaintiff) (smej, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
SUNDARI K.PRASAD,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:17CV140
V.
WASHINGTON METRO POLICE DEPT,et aL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Sundari K. Prasad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action. By
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on February 28,2018,the Court dismissed the action
as legally frivolous and for failure to state claim. {See ECF Nos. 16, 17.) The matter is now
before the Court on Prasad's "Petition for Rehearing" that will be construed as a motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)("Rule 59(e) Motion," ECF No. 18).^ See MLC Auto.,
LLC V. Town ofS. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-78(4th Cir. 2008)(stating that filings made within
twenty-eight days after the entry ofjudgment are construed as Rule 59(e) motions (citing Dove v.
CODESCO,569 F.2d 807, 809(4th Cir. 1978))).
"[Rjeconsideration of ajudgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should
be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat1 Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403(4th Cir. 1998)
(citation omitted)(internal quotation marks omitted). The United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for relief under Rule 59(e): "(1)to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law;(2)to account for new evidence not available at trial; or
(3)to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d
' The Court employs the pagination assigned to Prasad's Rule 59(e) Motion by the
CM/ECF docketing system.
1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993)(citing Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., Ill F. Supp. 1406, 1419
(D. Md. 1991); Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625,626(S.D. Miss. 1990)).
Prasad does not explicitly address any ofthe above recognized grounds for relief in her
Rule 59(e) Motion. Nevertheless, the Court construes Prasad to argue that the Court should
grant her Rule 59(e) Motion "to correct a clear error oflaw or prevent manifest injustice." Id.
(citations omitted). However, Prasad's motion fails to demonstrate any clear errors in the
conclusions ofthe Court or that the dismissal ofthe Particularized Complaint results in manifest
injustice. Rather, Prasad launches into an attack on the undersigned because Prasad dislikes the
unfavorable decision. As the Court has explained to Prasad many times, unfavorable "judicial
rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for [finding that a judge was] bias[ed]." Liteky
V. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555(1994)(citation omitted). The Court harbors no bias
justifying recusal.
Prasad also challenges the Court's conclusion that the final pages of her Particularized
Complaint had nothing to do with the claims she raises against the sole named Defendant, the
Washington DC Police Dept. Prasad states that "that [section] is the 'claim' [the undersigned]
overlooks." (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1.) As the Court explained:
Beginning on page nine of the Particularized Complaint, Prasad has attached
pages with miscellaneous allegations that do not name the Defendant and do not
appear to follow logically her allegations in the previous pages. (Part. Compl. 9.)
Prasad labels the top of page nine, "False Case CR16-1184 [] PTSD from case
[and] Prasad v. DCPD." {Id.) These later pages outline her medical history and
appear to raise different claims against the Hampton Roads Regional Jail and
someone named "Hamilton Hendrix." {See id. at 9-14.) To the extent that Prasad
wishes to raise claims pertaining to her medical history that are not against the
named Defendant, she is free to file a separate civil action raising these claims.
As these allegations are not against the named Defendant, the Court will not
consider them here.
(ECF No. 16, at 6 n.l2.) The Court fails to discern how Prasad is entitled relief under Rule 59(e)
as these rambling and incoherent attachments have no bearing on the claims she raised in her
Particularized Complaint against Defendant.
The remainder ofthe motion is rambling, and contains incoherent cross-references to
Prasad's other cases that she filed in the Court and fails demonstrate entitlement to relief under
Rule 59(e). In sum,the Court discerns no clear error oflaw or manifest injustice in the dismissal
of Prasad's Particularized Complaint. Accordingly, Prasad's Rule 59(e) Motion(ECF No. 18)
will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
M. Hannah L'<
United States Disfribt Judge
Date: SEP 10 2018
Richmond, Virginia
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?