Prasad v. Pemberton et al, No. 3:2017cv00063 - Document 15 (E.D. Va. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 10/05/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (walk, )

Download PDF

Prasad v. Pemberton et al Doc. 15 ITTT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA OGT - 5 2018 Richmond Division CUEBK,U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA SUNDARI K.PRASAD, PlaintifT, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV63 JAYNE PEMBERTON,et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Sundari K. Frasad, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, submitted this action. For the reasons set forth below, the action will be dismissed for Prasad's failure to follow the directives of the Court. I. Prasad's Historv of Abusive Litigation In the last two years, Frasad has submitted over fifty civil actions. Prasad's actions have been dismissed as frivolous and malicious, or for failure to state a claim, or because she has failed to follow the directives of the Court. Prasad's many actions have strained the resources of the Court. Litigants have an obligation to '"Stop, Think, Investigate and Research' before filing papers either to initiate a suit or to conduct the litigation." Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp.,835 F.2d 479, 482(3d Cir. 1987). Prasad has ignored this obligation and flooded the Court with her inchoate claims for relief. Additionally, Prasad has engaged in a consistent pattern of disregarding the directives of the Court. For example, the Court has informed Prasad that she may not tack on allegations or defendants to a complaint through partial amendments, but must file a comprehensive amended complaint. Prasad has ignored that directive. Moreover, because of the nature of her rambling Dockets.Justia.com October 5, 2018

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.