Anthony Ray Jenkins v. (Nfn) Kimerly, Probation Officer

Citations: 66 F.3d 338; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 31760; 1995 WL 547803Docket: 95-3077

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; September 15, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Citation of unpublished opinions is now permitted if they have persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached to the citing document or furnished to the Court and all parties during oral arguments. Anthony Ray Jenkins, the plaintiff-appellant, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against a probation officer, challenging the revocation of his community corrections assignment and appeal bond, which resulted in his incarceration under a state court sentence for drug possession. The court interprets Jenkins' claims as a hybrid seeking both habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and monetary damages under § 1983.

The district court requested a Martinez report to evaluate the claims, which Jenkins did not dispute. The report indicates Jenkins had been convicted for possession of cocaine and marijuana, sentenced to three to ten years of custody, and initially assigned to community corrections under specific conditions, one of which he refused, claiming it was due to an ongoing appeal. Following a motion to revoke his community corrections, Jenkins was released on an appeal bond. However, subsequent criminal charges, including child abuse and intimidation, led to a motion to revoke his bond, which the court granted, remanding him to custody. Ultimately, his convictions were affirmed by the Kansas Court of Appeals, and he received an additional sentence for the child abuse charge.

A hearing for the motion to revoke Jenkins' community corrections assignment was held on January 25, 1995, resulting in his current imprisonment, though the court's specific finding is not recorded. Jenkins' appeal primarily contests the revocation of his bonds rather than the community corrections revocation. He argues that a mistrial on charges of intimidation of a witness and battery warranted his bond's reinstatement or reinstatement into community corrections, despite his noncompliance with its terms. Jenkins mistakenly believes this situation constitutes double jeopardy; however, the court clarifies that being charged with another crime while out on bond is a valid reason for bond revocation. Due to his felony convictions, he has no right to release.

The court agrees with the district court that there are no constitutional violations related to the community corrections revocation or bond revocation. Jenkins has filed thirty-three appeals in a seven-month period, most stemming from these events, but none have merit. He is portrayed as a forty-year-old former athlete with a history of violence and drug possession, believing he is entitled to use drugs and physically discipline his child, resulting in severe injuries. Jenkins claims racial prejudice has led to his incarceration and likens it to slavery. He has shown a refusal to comply with legal restrictions, such as gun possession laws, and rejected a plea deal that would have been significantly beneficial. His actions have led to negative consequences for his family and community, increasing the burden of his imprisonment. In prison, Jenkins has resorted to filing numerous lawsuits and appeals, indicating an aggressive response to his legal challenges. The judges express their commitment to access to the court system, acknowledging the growing number of meritless habeas cases, while remaining vigilant against any unlawful acts that may arise.

A significant number of civil rights suits under Section 1983 are filed by indigent prisoners, leading judges to express frustration over handling what they perceive as frivolous cases. While such lawsuits can serve as a check on potential abuses by prison authorities, the court emphasizes that its limited resources should not be consumed by repetitive and baseless claims. The court cites *In re Sindram* to highlight the need for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and indicates it has the authority to limit abusive litigation. In Jenkins' case, he has not previously been warned about his filings nor has he engaged in this behavior for an extended period, prompting the court to refrain from immediate restrictions on his access to the courts. However, Jenkins is warned against continuing to file meritless lawsuits that lack proper defendants or factual support. Should he persist in this conduct, the court will support any reasonable limitations imposed by the district court on his pro se filings. The ruling is affirmed, and the order is not considered binding precedent except under specific legal doctrines. It is noted that a defendant named Kimerly does not exist; however, the court interprets the filing as naming the appropriate official in charge of community corrections.