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prisoners and nonprisoners alike)(citing cases)(unpublished).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
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?