Adkins v. Johnson et al

Filing 4

ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), and plaintiff's motion 3 for appointment of counsel is denied as moot. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 11/8/2011. (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. 11-3159-SAC

J. LEE JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.

O R D E R
A former Kansas prisoner proceeds pro se seeking relief under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 from a Kansas Supreme Court Justice, two Wyandotte
County Juvenile Judges, seven attorneys in the Wyandotte County
District Attorney’s office, and two officials in the Kansas City,
Kansas, police department.
Adkins contends he was denied his constitutional rights under
the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments regarding the
denial of state appellate review in five juvenile cases in 1996 and
1997.

It appears Adkins met with no success in his recent attempt

to withdraw his pleas in those five cases, or in his attempt to
appeal that decision.

Adkins seeks the reversal of the juvenile

convictions, disciplinary action taken against all defendants, a
restraining

order

to

prevent

future

retaliation,

and

both

compensatory and punitive damages.
Having reviewed Adkins’ allegations, the court finds for the
following reasons that the complaint should be summarily dismissed
as frivolous, as stating no claim upon which relief can be granted
under § 1983, and as seeking monetary relief from persons immune

from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

The Eleventh Amendment clearly bars Adkins’ attempt to seek
relief

from

capacity.

any

of

the

state

court

judges

in

their

official

Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173, 1180 (10th Cir. 2002);

Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Agric. Ins. Co., 507 F.3d 1250, 1252 (10th
Cir. 2007). These defendants also are entitled to absolute immunity
to the extent Adkins seeks relief in each defendant’s individual
capacity.

Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978); Lundahl

v. Zimmer, 296 F.3d 936, 939 (10th Cir.2002).
To the extent Adkins seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
based on alleged constitutional error in the juvenile convictions,
such relief must be pursued through habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
There is, however, nothing to suggest that Adkins can now satisfy
the “in custody” requirement for seeking relief under § 2254.
Moreover, to the extent Adkins seeks damages from the two
Kansas

City

police

officials,

Adkins

identifies

no

personal

participation by either defendant in the alleged violation of his
constitutional rights.
(10th

Cir.2008).

And

Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162
to

the

extent

plaintiff’s

allegations

implicate the validity of the five juvenile judgments, no cognizable
claim

for

damages

under

§

1983

is

presented

until

Adkins

demonstrates one or more of those particular judgments have been
reversed or set aside.

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87

(1994).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is granted, that the complaint is
dismissed

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

1915(e)(2)(B),

and

that

plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 3) is denied as
2

moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 8th day of November 2011 at Topeka, Kansas.

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

3