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