Samar Akins v. NE Court of Appeals , 607 F. App'x 606 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  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    [Unpublished]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-