Adkins v. Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. the plaintiffs complaint (Dk. 1) is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See attached for more details. Terminating Case. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 11/4/2011. Mailed to pro se party: Mr. Ebrahim Adkins, 6105 Corona Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66102 by certified mail; Certified Tracking Number: 70092250000229215176 and regular mail. (bmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
EBRAHIM ADKINS,
Plaintiff,
Vs.

No. 11-4109-SAC

KANSAS COMMISSION ON
JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The court screened Mr. Adkins’ pro se complaint and filed its
order on October 20, 2011, requiring the plaintiff to show cause why his civil
rights complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief,
for being frivolous, or for seeking monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. (Dk. 15). In particular, the court found the
plaintiff’s complaint to consist largely of “bare assertions, conclusory
allegations, and legal citations, all of which fail to offer ‘a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that . . . [he] is entitled to relief.’ Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)(2).” Id. at 13-14. The court concluded that the complaint did
not clear several legal hurdles for stating a claim of relief against the Kansas
Commission on Judicial Qualifications (“KCJQ”) or its individual members in
their official and individual capacities. Id. at 14.
The plaintiff timely filed his response, but it does not cure the
deficiencies discussed in the court’s show cause order. The plaintiff cites

several decisions as holding that a federal district may assert mandamus
authority over state officials, but none of the cited cases actually holds this.
The court lacks jurisdiction to grant this writ against state officials. The
plaintiff continues to offer no cognizable claim for prospective relief, as the
KCJQ is not a governmental or judicial body with the authority to grant the
relief that Mr. Adkins apparently requested in his KCJQ complaints. Quasijudicial immunity bars his damage claim against the KCJQ and its members
in their individual capacities. Nor can he obtain such relief for rights
allegedly denied in the state criminal proceedings because these claims are
barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). His general claim of
a liberty interest arising from state regulatory measures fails to overcome
the established precedent that a private party who files an individual
complaint seeking disciplinary action lacks standing to sue the governmental
officials charged with investigating and resolving disciplinary complaints.
Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir. 1993). For
these reasons and those explained in its prior order, the court dismisses the
plaintiff’s complaint, because it fails to state a claim for relief, is barred by
Eleventh Amendment immunity, quasi-judicial immunity and Heck, and is
frivolous for the plaintiff lacks standing.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint (Dk. 1)
is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

2

Dated this 4th day of November, 2011, Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Sam A. Crow
Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge

3