Samar Akins v. NE Court of Appeals

Eighth Circuit

Samar Akins v. NE Court of Appeals

607 F. App'x 606

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 2015

Docket15-1247

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 607 F. App'x 606 (Samar Akins v. NE Court of Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Samar Akins v. NE Court of Appeals, 607 F. App'x 606 (8th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Samar Akins appeals the district court’s 1 preservice dismissal of his pro se complaint, and the district court’s imposition of filing restrictions. Upon careful review, we conclude that the dismissal of Akins’s complaint was proper because, among other reasons, he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (although legal conclusions can provide framework of complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations that plausibly give rise to entitlement to relief); see also Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal is reviewed de novo). We further conclude that the district court-did not abuse its discretion by imposing the filing restrictions. See In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1290-91, 1294 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (affirming restrictions that limited litigant to single monthly pro se filing, and required him to provide certain documentation related to other filings); see also Bass v. Gen. Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir.1998) (imposition of sanctions under court’s inherent authority is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Akins’s pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

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

PER CURIAM.

Samar Akins appeals the district court’s 1 preservice dismissal of his pro se complaint, and the district court’s imposition of filing restrictions. Upon careful review, we conclude that the dismissal of Akins’s complaint was proper because, among other reasons, he failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (although legal conclusions can provide framework of complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations that plausibly give rise to entitlement to relief); see also Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissal is reviewed de novo). We further conclude that the district court-did not abuse its discretion by imposing the filing restrictions. See In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1290-91, 1294 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (affirming restrictions that limited litigant to single monthly pro se filing, and required him to provide certain documentation related to other filings); see also Bass v. Gen. Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir.1998) (imposition of sanctions under court’s inherent authority is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Akins’s pending motion.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 F. App'x 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samar-akins-v-ne-court-of-appeals-ca8-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack