Akins v. Nebraska Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Justices et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Akins's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP 2 is denied. Akins's Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Akins is ordered to show cause within 21 days from the date of this order why this Court should not impose the filing restrictions listed in this order. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (JSF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS
AND SUPREME COURT JUSTICES,
all, and STATE OF NEBRASKA, The,
I. INITIAL REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
This case is before the Court for preservice screening of Plaintiff Samar Akins’s
Complaint (Filing No. 1) under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court must
determine whether Akins should be granted in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. In addition
to this case, in the last 10 months, Akins has filed the following cases and sought leave to
Akins v. United States of America, et al., 4:14-cv-03026-JMG-PRSE (filed 01/28/14
and dismissed 05/22/14 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim);
Akins v. Jeffries, et al., 4:14-cv-03034-RGK-PRSE (filed 02/06/14 and dismissed
07/30/14 for failure to state a claim);
Akins v. Judge Strong, et al., 4:14-cv-03061-RGK-PRSE (filed 03/24/14 and
dismissed 09/03/14 for want of prosecution);
Akins v. Officer Schreiner, et al., 4:14-cv-03081-RGK-PRSE (filed 04/18/14 and
dismissed 09/03/14 for want of prosecution);
Akins v. Bruning, et al., 4:14-cv-03092-JFB-PRSE (filed 05/05/14 and dismissed
10/07/14 for want of prosecution);
Akins v. Albers, et al., 4:14-cv-03150-JMG-PRSE (filed 07/29/14);
Akins v. Officer Firell, et al., 4:14-cv-03151-RGK-PRSE (filed 07/29/14 and
dismissed 10/27/14 for failure to state a claim);
Akins v. Wilson, et al., 4:14-cv-03153-RGK-PRSE (filed 07/30/14);
Akins v. Martinez, et al., 4:14-cv-03204-JMG-PRSE (filed 10/08/14);
Akins v. Kopf, et al., 4:14-cv-03217-JFB-PRSE (filed 11/05/14 and dismissed
11/07/14 on grounds it sought relief against a defendant immune from suit ); and
Akins v. State of Nebraska, 4:14-cv-03216-RGK-PRSE (filed 11/04/14).
Seven of these cases were dismissed prior to service of process because they were
frivolous, they failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or because Plaintiff
failed to prosecute them. As discussed below, this case will also be dismissed prior to
service of process because it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Four
cases remain pending.
Here, the Court finds upon initial review of Akins’s Complaint, that Akins’s claims
should be dismissed because they fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Akins sued the State of Nebraska, the Nebraska Court of Appeals, and all justices of the
Nebraska Supreme Court for money damages. (See Filing No. 1.) He alleges Defendants
violated his human rights and Eighth Amendment rights because they systematically
exclude African Americans from sitting on the Nebraska Court of Appeals and Nebraska
Supreme Court. Akins alleges the exclusion of African Americans from these courts
resulted in their “arbitrarily and capriciously denying [his] direct appeal as a matter of right
and petition for further review by the Supreme Court in Michael Akins OBO v. Samar Akins,
without adjudicating the merits.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 1-2.)
Here, Akins has sued the State of Nebraska for money damages. As Akins is aware
(see e.g., Case Nos. 4:14-cv-03092-JFB-PRSE and 4:14-cv-03034- RGK-PRSE), the
Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages by private parties against a state. See,
e.g., Egerdahl v. Hibbing Cmty. Coll., 72 F.3d 615, 619 (8th Cir. 1995); Dover Elevator Co.
v. Arkansas State Univ., 64 F.3d 442, 446-47 (8th Cir. 1995). In addition, as Akins is
aware (see, e.g., Case No. 4:14-cv-3061-RGK-PRSE), judges are absolutely immune from
suits for damages arising from acts, whether or not erroneous, in their judicial capacities,
as long as such actions were not taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles
v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991). Moreover, as he has done in nearly every other case
he has filed in this Court, Akins failed to set forth any factual allegations to support his
blanket assertions that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his race. Akins’s
Complaint (Filing No. 1) is therefore subject to dismissal because it fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Akins has a right to access the courts. However, his right of access cannot be
unlimited in the face of abuse. As set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals:
The Court has authority to control and manage matters pending before
it. . . . The need for such control bears noting. First, Rule 1 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the rules shall be construed to secure
the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. Three
fundamental goals underlie this mandate; maintaining the quality of justice,
avoiding delay, and improving the efficiency of dispute resolution. In order
to secure these values, we must recognize that judicial resources are limited
in the short run and need to be protected from wasteful consumption.
Frivolous, bad faith claims consume a significant amount of judicial
resources, diverting the time and energy of the judiciary away from
processing good faith claims.
The most apparent effect of excessive litigation is the imposition of
unnecessary burdens on, and the useless consumption of, court resources.
As caseloads increase, courts have less time to devote to each case. A lack
of adequate time for reflection threatens the quality of justice. . . . Abusive
litigation results in prolonged, repetitive harassment of defendants causing
frustration and often extraordinary and unreasonable expenditures of time
and money defending against unfounded claims.
Defendants have a right to be free from harassing, abusive, and meritless
litigation. Federal courts have a clear obligation to exercise their authority to
protect litigants from such behavior. The Court may, in its discretion, place
reasonable restrictions on any litigant who files non-meritorious actions for
obviously malicious purposes and who generally abuses judicial process.
These restrictions may be directed to provide limitations or conditions on the
filing of future suits.
In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1292-93 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting People of the State of
Colorado v. Carter, 678 F. Supp. 1484, 1486 (D.Colo. 1986)) (internal citations om itted).
The Court finds imposing filing restrictions on Akins in this Court is warranted to
protect the Court from “unnecessary burdens on, and the useless consumption of, court
resources.” See id. Akins is ordered to show cause within 21 days from the date of this
order why this Court should not impose the following filing restrictions1:
Akins will be limited to filing one case in forma pauperis in the federal district
court for the District of Nebraska per month.
Akins will be enjoined from filing any lawsuit in the federal district court for the
District of Nebraska unless he: attaches a copy of this order to his complaint, and he
These restrictions would not prohibit Akins from proceeding as a proponent in any civil
claim in this district with the representation of an attorney. In addition, these restrictions would not
prohibit Akins from defending himself in any criminal or civil litigation brought against him in this
attaches an affirmation, signed by him, of the date of his most recent prior filing of a new
case in this district.
IT IS ORDERED:
Akins’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (Filing No. 2) is denied;
Akins’s Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted; and
Akins is ordered to show cause within 21 days from the date of this order why
this Court should not impose the filing restrictions listed above.
DATED this 10th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief 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?