Adkins v. Armstrong

Tenth Circuit

Adkins v. Armstrong

451 F. App'x 744

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 2011

Docket11-3225

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 451 F. App'x 744 (Adkins v. Armstrong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adkins v. Armstrong, 451 F. App'x 744 (10th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining Plaintiffs brief and the appellate record, this panel has deter *745 mined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Ebrahim Adkins appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint against various state officials. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by the Kansas City Municipal Court’s refusal to file motions he submitted in four cases. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs complaint lacked sufficient factual support to state any plausible claim against any defendant, and the court also noted that some of the damages sought in the complaint were barred by various immunities. The district court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies. Although Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, it was again devoid of specific factual allegations, containing only conclusory claims and citations to legal authorities. The district court accordingly dismissed the complaint for the same reasons stated in its earlier order.

After thoroughly reviewing Plaintiffs brief and the record on appeal, we see no error in the district court’s rulings. We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. We DENY Petitioner’s motion to proceed, in forma pauperis on appeal and instruct him to immediately pay the remaining unpaid balance of his appellate filing fee.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the *745 case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining Plaintiffs brief and the appellate record, this panel has deter *745 mined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Ebrahim Adkins appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint against various state officials. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by the Kansas City Municipal Court’s refusal to file motions he submitted in four cases. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs complaint lacked sufficient factual support to state any plausible claim against any defendant, and the court also noted that some of the damages sought in the complaint were barred by various immunities. The district court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies. Although Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, it was again devoid of specific factual allegations, containing only conclusory claims and citations to legal authorities. The district court accordingly dismissed the complaint for the same reasons stated in its earlier order.

After thoroughly reviewing Plaintiffs brief and the record on appeal, we see no error in the district court’s rulings. We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. We DENY Petitioner’s motion to proceed, in forma pauperis on appeal and instruct him to immediately pay the remaining unpaid balance of his appellate filing fee.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the *745 case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 F. App'x 744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkins-v-armstrong-ca10-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack