Prasad v. Director Jane Doe et al, No. 3:2018cv00310 - Document 4 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 6/15/18. (mailed copy to Prasad). (jtho, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Prasad v. Director Jane Doe et al Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division SUNDARI K.PRASAD, n \L JUN I 5 2018 CLERK U S. DISTRICT COURT 'RICHMOND. VA Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No.3;18CV310 DIRECTOR JANE DOE,et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate, submitted this action and requested leave to proceed informa pauperis. The pertinent statute provides: In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action[mforma pauperis] if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has at least three other actions or appeals that have been dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim. See, e.g., Prasad v. Berger, No. 3:17CV74,2018 WL 2088749, at *6(E.D. Va. May 4, 2018); Prasad v. Judicial Inq. & Review Comm 'n.. No. 3:17CV498, 2018 WL 2015809, at *4(E.D. Va. Apr. 30,2018); Prasad i'. Gothic Beauty Magazine, No. 3:17CV446, 2018 WL 1863650,*5 (E.D. Va. Apr. 18, 2018); Prasad v. United State.s, No. 3:17CV510, 2018 WL 1143597. at *4(E.D. Va. Mar. 2, 2018); Prasad v. Washington Metro Police Dep t. No. 3:17CV140, 2018 WL 1091999, at *4(E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2018); Prasad V. Karn Art Inc., No. 3:17CV62,2017 WL 5012591, at *4(E.D. Va. Nov. 2, 2017), aff'dlM F. App'x 329(4th Cir. 2018); Prasad v. Delta Sigma Thela Sorority, Inc., No. 3:16CV897, 2017 WL 4399551, at *5(E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 2017),offJIM F. App'x 336(4th Dockets.Justia.com Cir. 2018). Plaintiffs current complaint does not suggest that she is in imminent danger of serious physical harm. Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on May 22, 2018, the Court DIRECTED that, within eleven (11) days of the date of entry thereof. Plaintiff must show good cause why she should be permitted to proceed informa pauperis. Plaintiff has responded. Plaintiff states that two of the cases listed as strikes should not count. (ECF No. 3, at 1.) Plaintiff also suggests that "imminent danger is constant and physical harm has been established." {Id. (capitalization corrected)(emphasis omitted).) Plaintiffs vague assertions do not allow her to avoid the restrictions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff provides no coherent explanation as to why she should be allowed to proceed informa pauperis and fails to demonstrate that she "is under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Moreover, Plaintiffs cases identified above properly counted as strikes. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request to proceed informa pauperis is DENIED. The action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, she may submit a new complaint with the full $400 filing fee. The Court will process such a complaint as a new civil action. An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion. It is so ORDERED. M. Hannah LauSk Date: JuH 1 5 2018 Richmond, Virginia United Sta.es District Judge
]]>
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.
