Akers v. Flannigan et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 32 Amended Motion for Sanctions. Signed by District Judge Holly L. Teeter on 7/19/2021. Mailed to pro se party Montgomery Akers by regular mail. (hw)

Case 2:21-cv-02042-HLT-KGG Document 33 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:21-CV-02042-HLT

KIM I. FLANNIGAN, ET AL.,
Defendants

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s amended motion for sanctions (Doc. 32).
Plaintiff continues to argue that this matter was improperly removed from the state court and to
claim that the Assistant United States Attorney who represented some of the defendants in this
matter has perpetrated fraud upon the court.
First, to the extent plaintiff continues to assert that this matter was improperly removed
from state court, the court denies relief. The court addressed this argument both in its order
dismissing this matter and in its order denying plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend. Plaintiff offers
no argument in the present motion that merits additional discussion.
Likewise, the court addressed, and denied, plaintiff’s argument that Rule 11 sanctions
should be imposed on the Assistant United States Attorney in its order dismissing this matter.
Plaintiff’s argument in his amended motion does not present new or persuasive grounds for
sanctions.
Due to plaintiff’s repetitive and abusive filings, the court advises him that future filings in
this matter may be summarily denied, and, if necessary, the court will consider imposing filing
restrictions. “[T]he right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional and there is
no constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action that is frivolous

Case 2:21-cv-02042-HLT-KGG Document 33 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 2

or malicious.” Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 353 (10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (internal and
subsequent citations omitted).
THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERS that plaintiff’s amended motion for sanctions (Doc.
32) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 19, 2021

/s/ Holly L. Teeter
HOLLY L. TEETER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2