FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 1, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
EBRAHIM ADKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 11-3131
v. (D.C. No. 5:10-CV-03170-SAC)
ROBERT SAPIEN, Unit Team (D. Kan.)
Manager, El Dorado Correctional
Facility, in his dual capacity; PAUL
SNYDER, Unit Team Manager, El
Dorado Correctional Facility, in his
dual capacity; DON STURGILL, Unit
Team Counselor, El Dorado
Correctional Facility, in his dual
capacity; RANDY KAUFMAN, Unit
Team Counselor, El Dorado
Correctional Facility, in his dual
capacity; CARRIE MARLETT, Unit
Team Counselor, El Dorado
Correctional Facility, in her dual
capacity; DALE CALL, Administrator,
El Dorado Correctional Facility, in his
dual capacity; DEBBIE BRATTON,
Deputy Warden, El Dorado
Correctional Facility, in her dual
capacity; RAY ROBERTS, Warden, El
Dorado Correctional Facility, in his
dual capacity; WILLIAM
CUMMINGS, Secretary of Corrections
Designee, Kansas Department of
Corrections, in his dual capacity;
ROGER WERHOLTZ, Secretary of
Corrections, Kansas Department of
Corrections, in his dual capacity; LIV
RICE, Administrator, Kansas
Department of Corrections, in her dual
capacity; DAVID RIGGIN,
Administrator, Kansas Department of
Corrections, in his dual capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
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, an individual formerly incarcerated in the Kansas
state prison system, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983
action against various Kansas prison officials. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged
that Defendants unlawfully interfered with his access to the courts during his
incarceration by placing him on mailing and copying restrictions and by
mishandling and confiscating his legal mail. The district court concluded that the
declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff had been rendered moot by
his release from prison. The court also concluded that Plaintiff’s allegations were
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
-2-
time-barred and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The
court accordingly dismissed the complaint.
After thoroughly reviewing Plaintiff’s brief and the record on appeal, we
conclude that the district court’s ruling was correct and well-reasoned. We
therefore AFFIRM the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for substantially the
same reasons stated by the district court. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal is GRANTED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-