Sundari K. Prasad v. US, No. 18-6256 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6256 SUNDARI K. PRASAD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Unknown Agent, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00510-MHL-RCY) Submitted: July 20, 2018 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sundari K. Prasad, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: August 1, 2018 PER CURIAM: Sundari K. Prasad appeals the district court’s order dismissing under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1) (2012) her particularized civil complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). On appeal, Prasad argues that the district court’s disposition should be reversed because the district judge is biased against her and that the court should have appointed her counsel. We affirm. First, Prasad’s claim of judicial bias, which is based solely on her disagreement with the district court’s substantive rulings in this and Prasad’s other civil actions, gains no traction as this is not a sufficient basis for such a claim. * See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). Next, Prasad contends that the district court should have appointed counsel to represent her in this matter. We find no fault in the district court’s failure to appoint counsel to represent Prasad, though, because Prasad did not request that relief in this case. As a final matter, we observe that the other contentions raised in Prasad’s informal brief are not responsive to the dispositive reasons for the district court’s dismissal order, as required by Local Rule 34(b). See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). * We also note that our independent review of the record did not reveal any indicia of judicial bias. 2 For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Prasad’s Bivens action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See Prasad v. United States, No. 3:17cv-00510-MHL-RCY (E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.