Adkins v. Armstrong et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's combined motion for leave to file complaint and motion for relief from judgment 17 is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 09/22/17. Mailed to pro se party Ebrahim Adkins by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EBRAHIM ADKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 11-3053-SAC

RICK ARMSTRONG, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s combined motion
for leave to file complaint and motion for relief from judgment (Doc.
#17).
Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in 2011
alleging violations of his constitutional rights arising from the
refusal of the Kansas City Municipal Court to file motions in submitted
in cases filed there. This Court found plaintiff’s complaint failed
to supply adequate factual support for any of the claims and that some
parts of his claims for damages were barred by immunities. Plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, but it, too, was insufficient to state
a claim for relief, and the Court dismissed the action.
The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the action,
and in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of
certiorari.
In August 2017, plaintiff submitted the present motion. The Court
has examined the lengthy pleading, much of which is comprised of copies
of rulings in other cases. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), under which plaintiff
proceeds, allows for relief on numerous grounds, but relief under that
provision is “extraordinary and may only be granted in exceptional

circumstances.” Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co.,
909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff offers no ground to
support relief from the judgment; instead, he argues only broadly that
he has followed all filing restrictions to the best of his ability,
that the Court may reopen this matter under Rule 60(b)1, and that his
filing is made in good faith. The Court finds no adequate ground for
relief and denies the motion.
IT IS, THEREFOR, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s combined motion
for leave to file complaint and motion for relief from judgment (Doc.
#17) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 22nd day of September, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

1

In Adkins v. Crow, Case No. 12-4091, Judge Thomas Marten of this Court imposed
filing restrictions on future filings by the plaintiff. See Doc. #17 pp. 41-43. While
that order allows plaintiff to file a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), this Court
reads that portion of the order to allow plaintiff to file such a motion in Case
No. 12-4091. The Court therefore cautions plaintiff that additional filings in this
matter must comply with the provisions entered in Adkins v. Crow and may be summarily
addressed by the Court.