Case ID: f-appx_607/html/0606-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samar AKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS and Supreme Court Justices, all; State of Nebraska, The, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-1247.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 5, 2015.
    Filed: June 18, 2015.
    
      Samar Akins, Lincoln, NE, pro se.
    Before SHEPHERD, BYE, KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Samar Akins appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal of his pro se complaint, and the district court’s imposition of filing restrictions. Upon careful 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (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. 
      
      . The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.