Akins v. Fox et al

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
NAV ASHIA .AKINS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	No. 4:25-cv-1183-DPM
TIMOTHY D. FOX, Judge, Official
Capacity; 	LL GLENN PLAZA LOOP, LLC,
Individual and Official Capacities, d/b/a
Steve Landers Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram;
and TRISTAN BENNET FRANKS,
Attorney, Barber Law Firm, Individual
and Official Capacity
ORDER
DEFENDANTS
1. 	Akins' s application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 	1, is
granted, but she must still pay the filing fee over time. 	See Doc. 3 in
Akins 	v. 	Uber 	Technologies, Inc., 	No. 4:25-cv-1127-DPM. 	The 	Court
assesses an initial partial filing fee of $10. 	Akins must pay $10 by
10 January 2026. 	And she must pay $10 by the 10th of each following
month until the entire $405 filing fee is paid.
2. 	The 	Court 	must 	screen 	Akins's 	complaint. 	28 	U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). Akins sued LL Glenn Plaza Loop, LLC in Pulaski County
Circuit Court in five separate suits since May 2025. 	Akins v. LL Glenn
Plaza 	Loop, 	LLC, 	60CV-25-5501, 	60CV-25-8328, 	60CV-25-8925,
60CV-25-8976, and 60CV-25-12091. 	Each case was dismissed under
Arkansas law. 	Akins has appealed three of those rulings. 	Akins v. LL
Case 4:25-cv-01183-DPM Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 3

Glenn Loop, LLC, CV-25-669, CV-25-670, and CV-25-675. 	Circuit Judge
Fox issued an order barring Akins from proceeding in forma pauperis in
any future filings. 	In re Petition of Navashia Akins to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, 60CV-25-8976 (Pulaski County) (Order, 6 August 2025).
Akins argues that Judge Fox, LL Glenn Plaza Loop, LLC, and its
attorney Tristan Franks violated 	her 	civil rights 	under 	42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 by conspiring to deny her access to the courts in retaliation for
her exercising her first amendment right to bring suit. 	Doc. 	2 at 2.
She seeks $50 million in damages and an order directing Judge Fox to
restore 	her 	right 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	in 	Pulaski 	County
Circuit Courts.
Akins's claims fail as a matter of law. 	LL Glenn Plaza Loop, LLC
and its attorney Tristan Franks are private actors, who are ordinarily
not subject to suit under§ 1983. To come within reach of the statute, a
private actor must be a "willful participant in joint activity with the
State in denying a plaintiff's constitutional rights." 	Magee v. Trustees of
Hamline 	University, 	747 F.3d 	532, 	536 	(8th 	Cir. 2014) 	(quotations
omitted). 	Neither defending itself against Akins's lawsuits, as Glenn
Plaza Loop, LLC did, nor acting as a lawyer in that defense, as Franks
did, suffices to state a plausible claim of joint activity with the Court to
deprive Akins of her rights in the circumstances presented. 	And Judge
Fox has judicial immunity for judicial acts done within his jurisdiction,
such as 	determining in forma 	pauperis status. 	Justice Network Inc. 	v.
-2-
Case 4:25-cv-01183-DPM Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 3

Craighead County, 931 F.3d 753, 759-62 (8th Cir. 2019). 	Even if Judge
Fox could be sued, there is no constitutional requirement that court fees
be waived for indigent litigants. 	United States v. 	Kras, 409 U.S. 434,
450 (1973); 	Lyon v. Krol, 127 F.3d 763, 765 (8th Cir. 1997). 	In any event,
this Court cannot tell a state court judge how to manage that judge's
docket. 	And Akins is availing herself of the legally adequate remedy
available to 	her- appealing 	Judge Fox's rulings. 	Pulliam 	v. 	Allen,
466 U.S. 522, 542 & n.22 (1984).
3. 	Akins' s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for
failure to state a claim. An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order and
accompanying Judgment will not be taken in good faith. 	28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3).
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
-3-
Case 4:25-cv-01183-DPM Document 3 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 3