Case Name: Ebrahim ADKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rick ARMSTRONG, Chief of Police, Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, in his dual capacity; Greg Lawson, Internal Affairs, Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, in his dual capacity; Mike McLin, Vehicles Administrator, Kansas Department of Revenue, in his dual capacity; John Smith, Vehicles Administrator, Kansas Department of Revenue, in his dual capacity; Aaron Roberts, Municipal Court Judge, Wyandotte County Courthouse, in his dual capacity; Jerome Gorman, District Attorney, Wyandotte County Courthouse, in his dual capacity, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-06
Citations: 451 F. App'x 744
Docket Number: No. 11-3225
Parties: Ebrahim ADKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rick ARMSTRONG, Chief of Police, Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, in his dual capacity; Greg Lawson, Internal Affairs, Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, in his dual capacity; Mike McLin, Vehicles Administrator, Kansas Department of Revenue, in his dual capacity; John Smith, Vehicles Administrator, Kansas Department of Revenue, in his dual capacity; Aaron Roberts, Municipal Court Judge, Wyandotte County Courthouse, in his dual capacity; Jerome Gorman, District Attorney, Wyandotte County Courthouse, in his dual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 744–745

Head Matter:
Ebrahim ADKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rick ARMSTRONG, Chief of Police, Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, in his dual capacity; Greg Lawson, Internal Affairs, Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, in his dual capacity; Mike McLin, Vehicles Administrator, Kansas Department of Revenue, in his dual capacity; John Smith, Vehicles Administrator, Kansas Department of Revenue, in his dual capacity; Aaron Roberts, Municipal Court Judge, Wyandotte County Courthouse, in his dual capacity; Jerome Gorman, District Attorney, Wyandotte County Courthouse, in his dual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-3225.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Dec. 6, 2011.
Ebrahim Adkins, Kansas City, KS, pro se.
Before O’BRIEN, McKAY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.
After examining Plaintiffs brief and the appellate record, this panel has deter mined 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 § 1983 complaint against various state officials. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by the Kansas City Municipal Court's refusal to file motions he submitted in four cases. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs complaint lacked sufficient factual support to state any plausible claim against any defendant, and the court also noted that some of the damages sought in the complaint were barred by various immunities. The district court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies. Although Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, it was again devoid of specific factual allegations, containing only conclusory claims and citations to legal authorities. The district court accordingly dismissed the complaint for the same reasons stated in its earlier order.
After thoroughly reviewing Plaintiffs brief and the record on appeal, we see no error in the district court's rulings. We therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court. We DENY Petitioner's motion to proceed, in forma pauperis on appeal and instruct him to immediately pay the remaining unpaid balance of his appellate filing fee.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.