Prasad v. Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. SEE OPINION for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 02/22/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )

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

£

n\

FEB 2 2 2018

J

L

?

SUNDARI K. PRASAD,
1 CLERK U.S. DiSlrliUl UUUKI
pirHMONO. VA

Plaintifi;
V.

Civil Action No. 3:17CV498

JUDICIAL INQUIRY & REVIEW COMMISSION,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this civil

action. In order to state a viable claim under BivensJ a plaintiff must allege that a person acting
under color of federal authority deprived him or her of a constitutional rightor of a right
conferred by a law of ihe United States. See iVilliams v. Burgess, No. 3:09cvl15, 2010 WL

1957105, at *2 (E.D. Va. May 13,2010) (citing Goldstein v. Moa/z, 364 F.3d 205, 210n.8 (4th
Cir. 2004)), Courts must liberally construe pro se civil rights complaints in order to address
constitutional deprivations. Gordon v, Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
Nevertheless, "[p]rinciples requiring generous construction ofpro se complaints are
not.,. without limits." Beaudett v. Cily ofHampton, 115 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4thCir. 1985).

Plaintiff's current allegations fail to provide the Defendant with fair notice of thefacts and legal
basis upon which its liability rests. SeeBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Moreover, it is unclear why Plaintiff

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