Adkins v. Armstrong et al
Filing
7
ORDER ENTERED: The amended complaint is dismissed. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 7/26/2011. (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.
O R D E R
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis on a civil
complaint, as later supplemented, seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 on allegations related to the Kansas City Municipal Court’s
refusal to file plaintiff’s motions in January 2011 in four cases.
The defendants named in the complaint are:
of Police for Kansas City, Kansas;
Rick Armstrong as Chief
Greg Lawson as an Internal
Affairs Officer for Kansas City, Kansas;
Mike McLin and John Smith
as Kansas Department of Revenue Vehicles Administrators; Municipal
Court Judge Aaron Roberts; and Wyandotte County District Attorney
Jerome
Gorman.
defendants
Plaintiff
violated
his
seeks
a
declaratory
constitutional
judgment
rights,
that
unspecified
injunctive relief, reversal and remand of the four municipal court
cases, disciplinary action against defendants, a restraining order
to prevent future retaliation by defendants, and compensatory and
punitive damages.
The court reviewed the supplemented complaint and found in part
it was subject to being summarily dismissed as stating no claim for
relief under § 1983, and as seeking damages barred by recognized
immunities. The court also found the complaint was subject to being
summarily dismissed without prejudice to the extent plaintiff sought
relief sounding in habeas corpus, or sought the federal court’s
intervention in closed or ongoing state court proceedings.
By an order dated May 4, 2011, the court directed plaintiff to
submit an amended complaint that addressed deficiencies identified
by the court, and to submit the amended complaint on a court
approved form.
In response plaintiff filed an amended complaint
naming the same defendants.
This sparse pleading again cites legal
authority for conclusory constitutional claims, and again fails to
provide
any
plausible
or
valid
basis
for
the
declaratory,
injunctive, and monetary relief being sought from any defendant in
this matter.
Accordingly, the court finds the amended complaint should be
dismissed for the same reasons stated in the order dated May 4,
2011.
Dismissal of the amended complaint is without prejudice to
any claim plaintiff might be able to pursue in federal habeas corpus
or in the state courts.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the amended complaint is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
This 26th day of July 2011 at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?