Adkins v. Crow, et al, No. 11-3103 (10th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 1, 2011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT EBRAHIM ADKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 11-3103 (D.C. No. 5:11-CV-03005-RDR) SAM CROW; G. THOMAS VANBEBBER, Federal District Court Judges, (D. Kan.) Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before O BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. After examining Plaintiff s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined 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 civil complaint against two federal district court judges who denied relief on a total of nine civil complaints Plaintiff filed from 2004 to 2006. The district court * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. correctly held that Plaintiff could not obtain relief from the final judgment entered in those cases through a § 1983 or mandamus action filed in the district court. The court also concluded that Plaintiff s request for damages was barred by judicial immunity because nothing in his allegations suggested any factual or legal basis for concluding that either Defendant acted outside his judicial capacity or in the absence of all jurisdiction in adjudicating Plaintiff s claims. The district court did not err in so ruling. We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiff s complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.