Adkins v. Crow
Filing
3
ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner is granted provisional leave to proceed in forma pauperis in each of the cases captioned herein for the limited purpose of denying and dismissing each petition as legally frivolous, abusive and malicious. Any appeal from th e judgment entered in either of the cases captioned herein will not be in good faith, and that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 2/19/2013. (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. 12-3239-RDR
SAM CROW,
Respondent.
EBRAHIM ADKINS,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO. 12-3247-RDR
SAM CROW,
Respondent.
O R D E R
Before the court are two pro se petitions submitted by a former
prisoner, Ebrahim Adkins.
Each petition is titled as a “Writ of
Mandamus,” and each names District Court Judge Sam Crow as the sole
respondent.
Having reviewed each petition, the court summarily
dismisses both actions as legally frivolous and malicious.
In each petition, Adkins states he is seeking relief, either
through a writ of mandamus or under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, from the dismissal
of a case assigned to respondent.
In Case No. 12-3239-RDR, Adkins alleges error in the district
court’s dismissal of his complaint in Case No. 11-3053-SAC, and in
the Tenth Circuit’s disposition of Adkins’s appeal in that case. 1
1See Adkins v. Armstrong, Case No. 11-3053-SAC (§ 1983 complaint seeking
relief on allegations that pleadings were not being filed in petitioner’s cases
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B))(D.Kan., July 26, 2011), affirmed
Adkins’s pleading also appears to include his attempt to add two
Wyandotte County Sheriffs as respondents in this matter, or possibly
as defendants in Case No. 11-3053-SAC.
Likewise, in Case No. 12-3247-RDR, Adkins alleges error by the
district court in dismissing the complaint in Case No. 11-3159-SAC,
and in the Tenth Circuit’s disposition of Adkins’s appeal in that
case.2
The court finds neither petition in the two cases captioned
herein presents any valid legal basis for proceeding either in
mandamus or under § 1983.
Instead, both petitions constitute an
abusive and improper attempt to re-litigate claims asserted in prior
cases and/or appeals, and are hereby dismissed.
The court further advises Adkins that filing restrictions now
apply to any future filings by Adkins in the District of Kansas and
in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
See Adkins v. Kansas
Commission on Judicial Qualifications, Appeal No. 11-3353 (February
8, 2013)(summarizing petitioner’s lengthy and abusive filing history,
and imposing filing restrictions against petitioner); Adkins v. Crow,
Case
No.
12-4091-JTM
(D.Kan,
December
5,
2012)(similar
filing
restrictions imposed), affirmed (10th Cir., February 8, 2013).
The
court adopts and imposes these restrictions on any future filings in
the instant two cases,3 and reminds Adkins that restrictions apply to
(10th Cir., November 28, 2011), cert. denied (October 1, 2012).
2
See Adkins v. Johnson, Case No. 11-3159-SAC (§ 1983 complaint alleging
constitutional violations by state judges and other officials in five juvenile
proceedings dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii))(D.Kan.,
November 8, 2011), affirmed (10th Cir., June 5, 2012), cert. denied (October 9,
2012).
3
Pursuant to the filing restrictions imposed in Adkins v. Crow, Case No.
12-4091-JTM and adopted herein, Adkins is subject to the following restrictions in
the instant case:
With the sole exception of a proper motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60,
any proper response to this order and any submission allowed by this order,
the clerk’s office shall not accept or file any pro se submissions, filings,
any new lawsuit to be filed in the District of Kansas.4
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner is granted provisional
leave to proceed in forma pauperis in each of the cases captioned
herein for the limited purpose of denying and dismissing each petition
as
legally
frivolous,
abusive,
and
malicious,
28
U.S.C.
§
1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any appeal from the judgment entered
in either of the cases captioned herein will not be in good faith,
and that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.
pleadings, or other documents by Adkins or on his behalf, regardless of the
payment of a filing fee, without express authorization of the undersigned
judge of this court.
4
Pursuant to the filing restrictions imposed in Adkins v. Crow, Case No.
12-4091-JTM and adopted herein - in any new lawsuit concerning, in any manner, the
subject matter of any of Adkins’s prior cases in this court and/or which names as
a defendant any person, court, agency, company, business, or other entity previously
sued in cases brought in the District of Kansas, Adkins shall:
A. File a petition with the clerk of the District of Kansas requesting leave
to file a complaint or other pleading.
B. Include in the petition or pleading the following information:
(1) A copy of this order and any subsequent order;
(2) a copy of the proposed complaint or pleading;
(3) a list of all other lawsuits or other matters currently pending or
previously filed with this court and/or the Tenth Circuit involving the
same or similar claims or parties, including the name, number, and
citation, if applicable, of each case, and the current status or
disposition of the case in this or any other court; and
(4) a list of all outstanding injunctions or orders limiting Adkins’s
access to any federal or state court, including the name, number, and
citation, if applicable, of all such orders or injunctions;
C. The complaint shall include a notarized affidavit certifying:
(1) the claims have not been previously asserted and/or do not involve
issues previously litigated and resolved;
(2) the claims are not frivolous, malicious, or made in bad faith;
(3) plaintiff acknowledges his responsibility to be aware of and comply
with all applicable Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure, as
well as the rules of this court and the Tenth Circuit; and
(4) the failure to comply with the rules and orders of this court can
subject him to sanctions and/or punishment for contempt.
D. Mail or otherwise deliver the above documents to the clerk of the court,
who shall forward them to the undersigned or another judge of this court of
determination whether the complaint or pleading is lacking in merit,
duplicative, or frivolous.
The court will either permit the filing of the complaint or pleading
or issue a minute order denying it. Failure to follow these procedures will
result in rejection of any future case Adkins attempts to file in this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
This 19th day of February 2013, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Richard D. Rogers
RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States District Judge
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?