Prasad v. Hampton Circuit Court et al
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 09/10/2018. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )
I
p
f
E
SEP 10 2 8
Jii
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA
Richmond Division
SUNDARIK.PRASAD,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No. 3:17CV204
HAMPTON CIRCUIT COURT,et al.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Simdari K. Prasad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action. By
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on May 31,2018,the Court dismissed the action as
legally frivolous and for failure to state claim. (See EOF Nos. 21,22.) 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. 23).' See MLCAuto., LLC v.
Town ofS. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-78 (4th Cir. 2008)(stating that filings made within twentyeight 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. Nat'I 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 oflaw 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., 771 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). The Court dismissed the action against Defendants based on judicial
immunity, quasi-judicial immunity, prosecutorial immunity, because defense attorneys are not
state actors, and because the Hampton Circuit Court and miscellaneous individuals are not
amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prasad takes issue with these conclusions, but she fails
to demonstrate any clear errors in the conclusions ofthe Court or that the dismissal ofthe
Amended Complaint resulted in manifest injustice. As the Court explained, Prasad simply has
no viable cause of action against these Defendants under § 1983 based on her allegations.
In her Rule 59(e) Motion,Prasad first claims that the Court skipped a step and should
have allowed her to file a third particularized complaint because of her disability and her many
cases pending before the Court. (Rule 59(e) Mot. 1-2.) However,Prasad had several
opportunities to file a short, plain statement of her claim, and the Court was not required to
provide her endless opportunities to amend. Second, Prasad claims that she did not intend to
name the Hampton Circuit Court or several other individuals as Defendants. (Id. at 4.)
Similarly, Prasad also argues that the Court erred in certain statements of her claims,failed to
review all of her arguments, and generally was wrong in its conclusions. However, as the Court
explained,"Prasad's[Amended Particularized] Complaint is comprised of seventeen pages of
rambling allegations and 220 pages of attached exhibits consisting of additional ramblings and
copies ofcourt documents, correspondence, and statutes. Further, in many instances, Prasad's
Complaint and the attached exhibits are not legible." (ECF No. 21, at 3.) The Court liberally
construed Prasad's complaint pursuant to its duties vmder 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), but Prasad's
rambling allegations failed to state a claim and were legally frivolous. Nothing in Prasad's Rule
59(e) Motion convinces the Court that its dismissal of her Amended Particularized Complaint
was a clear error oflaw or that it resulted in manifest injustice.
Accordingly, Prasad's Rule 59(e) Motion(ECF No. 23) will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
M. Hann;
SEP 1'' 2018
Richmond, Virginia
United States District Judge
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?