Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Adkins v. Sapien

United States District Court, D. Kansas

July 13, 2018

EBRAHIM ADKINS, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT SAPIEN, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          SAM A. CROW U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The case comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ebrahim Adkins's motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) from the order of the Court dismissing Plaintiff's § 1983 complaint (Doc. 18) and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 17). Plaintiff proceeds pro se.

         The Court entered an order on April 26, 2011, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint on the basis that the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff was rendered moot by his release from prison. See Doc. 7. The Court also found that Plaintiff's allegations were time-barred and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under § 1983. Id. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed the decision of this Court on September 12, 2011. See Doc. 14. On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed the pending motions.

         Rule 60(b) Motion (Doc. 18)

         In his 60(b) motion, Plaintiff states that he was “not in [his] right mind at no point of the litigation” and reiterates his complaints that he was denied access to the courts and his legal property was stolen when he was incarcerated in 2005 and 2006. He also argues the defendants should not be entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. Adkins does not address the finding that his complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

         Under Rule 60(b), a party may move for relief “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

         Mr. Adkins does not specify under which section he seeks relief. As Plaintiff's motion was filed over a year from the entry of judgment, it cannot be based on Rules 60(b)(1)-(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (providing motions under Rules 60(b)(1)-(3) must be made “no more than a year after entry of judgment”). Even a liberal construction of Mr. Adkins's motion does not support relief under Rule 60(b)(4) or 60(b)(5). Therefore, the Court considers ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.