Prasad v. Gothic Beauty Magazine et al, No. 3:2017cv00446 - Document 11 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Please Read Opinion for complete details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 04/18/2018. Copy of Opinion mailed to Plaintiff as directed.(ccol, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Prasad v. Gothic Beauty Magazine et al Doc. 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SUNDARIK. PRASAD, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:17CV446 GOTHIC BEAUTY MAGAZINE, et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Sundari K. Prasad, a Virginiainmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this civil action pursuant toBivens} By Memorandum Order entered on October 31,2017, the Court directedPrasad to file a particularized complaint. (ECF No. 9.) Thereafter, Prasad filed a Particularized Complaint (ECF No. 10), which is before the Court for evaluation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. I. Preliminary Review Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") this Courtmust dismiss any action filed by a prisoner if the Court determines the action (1)"is fiivolous" or (2)"fails to state a claim on which reliefmay be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Thefirst standard includes claims based upon "an indisputably meritless legal theory," or claims where the "factual contentions are clearly baseless." Clay v. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417,427 (E.D. Va. 1992) (quoting Neitzke V. Williams, 490U.S. 319, 327 (1989)), aff'd, 36 F.3d 1091 (4th Cir. 1994). The second standard is thefamiliar standard for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). ' Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofFed. Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
