Adkins v. Rogers

Filing 3

ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition is dismissed as frivolous and malicious. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 4/17/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Ebrahim Adkins by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EBRAHIM ADKINS,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 12-3076-SAC

RICHARD ROGERS,
Respondent.
EBRAHIM ADKINS,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 12-3080-SAC

RICHARD ROGERS,
Respondent.

O R D E R
In each of the cases captioned above, petitioner submitted a
pro se document titled “Writ Of Mandamus,” and a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 without prepayment
of the district court filing fee.

The same federal district court

judge is named in each action as the sole respondent. It appears,
however, that petitioner seeks relief concerning final judgments
entered by various federal court judges in petitioner’s previously
filed cases and appeals, and that petitioner is broadly claiming
these judges abused their discretion in deciding petitioner’s cases
and appeals because the final judgments were contrary to federal
law.
To the extent petitioner is seeking mandamus relief in this
court on such allegations,1 each petition is dismissed as frivolous,

1

Petitioner’s pro se pleadings are not clear enough to discount
the possibility that the petitions captioned herein may have been

repetitive, and abusive.

This court clearly lacks jurisdiction to

review final judgments entered in petitioner’s previous cases, and
lacks any mandamus authority over a federal district court judge.
Petitioner’s applications to this court for mandamus relief thus
lack any arguable basis in fact or in law, and appear to be improper
attempts to relitigate claims asserted in previously filed actions
and/or appeals.
Accordingly, to the extent petitioner seeks mandamus relief in
this

court

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

1361,

the

court

grants

petitioner’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis2 for the
limited

purpose

of

dismissing

the

petitions

as

frivolous

and

malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See also Ruston v. Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 304 Fed.Appx. 666 (10th
Cir.2008)(directive in § 1915(e)(2)(B) to dismiss frivolous or
malicious actions brought by in forma pauperis litigants applies to
prisoners and nonprisoners alike)(citing cases)(unpublished).

The

court further certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and
Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3), that any appeal taken from the final order
and judgment entered herein in either captioned case would not be
taken in good faith.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that in each of the cases captioned
herein, petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is

granted,

and

the

petition

is

dismissed

as

frivolous

and

intended as copies to respondent of actions petitioner intended or
attempted to file in another court.
2

Petitioner is no longer a prisoner, and thus is not subject to
the filing fee provisions imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act.
2

malicious.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 17th day of April 2012 at Topeka, Kansas.

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

3