Prasad v. Federal Trade Commission et al, No. 3:2017cv00224 - Document 15 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 09/10/2018. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (walk, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Prasad v. Federal Trade Commission et al Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA SEP I 02QIB Richmond Division clerk, UjS. oistrictcoDin' SUNDARIK.PRASAD, wchmond.va^ Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV224 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,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 May 16, 2018,the Court dismissed the action as legally fiivolous and for failure to state claim. {See ECF Nos. 11, 12.) 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. 14).' 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 a judgment 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 'The Court employs the pagination assigned to Prasad's Rule 59(e) Motion by the CM/ECF docketing system. Dockets.Justia.com claims against the Federal Trade Commission will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (ECF No. 11, at 7.) Prasad ails to demonsrate ny clear erors of law in the conclusions of the Court or that the dismissal of this action resulted in maniest injustice. Accordingly, Plainti's Rule 59(e) Motion (ECF No. 14) will be DENIED. On May 23, 2018, the Court received an Amended Complaint rom Prasad in this closed action. (ECF No. 13.) The Court dismissed he instant action because none of the named Defendants were amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 or Bivens, and her claims were legally rivolous. Prasad's Amended Complaint ails to alter that conclusion. No urther action will be taken on Prasad's Amended Complaint in this closed action. An appropriate Order shall issue. Date: September 10, 2018 Richmond, Virginia 4
]]>
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.
