Jenkins v. Kansas, State of et al - Document 11
ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's pending motions 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 and 10 are denied either as moot or as stating no grounds for relief. This action is dismissed and all relief is denied without prejudice. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 3/21/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Anthony Ray Jenkins by regular mail.) (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ANTHONY RAY JENKINS,
STATE OF KANSAS,
O R D E R
On January 27, 2012, this court entered an order finding
that Mr. Jenkins should be designated as a three-strikes litigant
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) based upon prior cases discussed
therein. The court further found that none of the facts alleged in
the instant complaint suggest that Mr. Jenkins is under imminent
danger of serious physical injury.
Accordingly, Mr. Jenkins’
incomplete motion to proceed without prepayment of fees was denied
and he was given time to pay the filing fee in full.
He was also
ordered to submit any objection he may have to his designation as
a three-strikes litigant within the same time period.
The time in which Mr. Jenkins was required to pay the
filing fee and submit any objection has expired, and he has not
paid the fee.
Nor has he filed an appropriate objection to his
three-strikes designation or to imposition of the fee in this case.
violation of filing restrictions imposed upon Mr. Jenkins in
Jenkins v. Scott, 1995 WL 781216 (D.Kan. Dec. 12, 1995).
that are submitted for filing by Mr. Jenkins in the future that do
not conform to these restrictions may be returned by the clerk
Before the court’s order was entered plaintiff also filed
several motions, which the court now denies as moot.
entitled to no relief in this action since the statutory fee has
not been satisfied.
After the court’s order was entered plaintiff
filed a response (Doc. 7), motion for rehearing (Doc. 8), motion
for relief (Doc. 9), and second motion for rehearing (Doc. 10).2
Having examined these filings for allegations that would entitle
plaintiff to an exception to the three-strikes provision, the court
finds none. Plaintiff states no valid grounds for rehearing of the
court’s prior rulings. The court designates Mr. Jenkins as a three
strikes litigant and concludes that this action must be dismissed
on account of his failure to pay the filing fee as ordered.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that plaintiff’s
pending motions are denied either as moot or as stating no grounds
for relief (Docs. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed and all
Plaintiff is also forewarned
profanity may be returned without filing.
Jenkins’ allegations in these pleadings are often nonsensical or
unclear. For example, he alleges in his response (Doc. 7) that this court has
no jurisdiction to rule on his “civil right” and directs the court to “send these
complaint (sic) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Right.” Mr. Jenkins sent these
materials to the court for filing, they are part of the court record, and they
will not be sent elsewhere. He may request copies of materials he has filed, but
he also may be charged a copying fee since he has been denied leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. It was and is his responsibility to prepare and retain copies
of all he submits to the court.
Any challenge Mr. Jenkins may have to any state conviction can only be
raised in a habeas corpus petition and, as he has been repeatedly informed, he
is entitled to no relief in federal court with respect to child custody
relief is denied, without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 21th day of March, 2012, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/Sam A. Crow
U. S. Senior District Judge