Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

EBRAHIM ADKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. THOMAS MARTEN, Federal District Court Judge, Defendant-Appellee.

Monroe G. McKay

(D. Kan.)

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 action against the district court judge who denied Plaintiff's prior petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that Plaintiff could not overturn the ruling in the earlier habeas action through a § 1983 or mandamus action in the district court. The court thus reasoned that Plaintiff's prayers for prospective injunctive relief were barred by the mandate in the earlier decision and that Defendant's judicial immunity barred any claims for other relief. The court further concluded that, to the extent Plaintiff sought to raise new claims in habeas, such claims could not be considered because Plaintiff had not obtained Tenth Circuit authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition.

We see no error in the district court's ruling, and we therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. Moreover, because the claims Plaintiff seeks to raise in this action were already raised and ruled on in the earlier habeas action, we DENY Plaintiff's request for this court to authorize the filing of a second or successive § 2254 application.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay


Circuit Judge


Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Adkins v. Marten
(Aug 1, 2011)