Samar Akins v. NE Court of Appeals, No. 15-1247 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Pre-service dismissal affirmed; the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing filing restrictions on plaintiff.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1247 ___________________________ Samar Akins lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Nebraska Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Justices, all; State of Nebraska, The lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: June 5, 2015 Filed: June 18, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, BYE, KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Samar Akins appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of his pro se complaint, and the district court’s imposition of filing restrictions. Upon careful 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 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 (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. ______________________________ -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.
