Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Rebekah A. Atkins v. Office of the Jefferson County Circuit Clerk David L. Nicholson -- Circuit Court Clerk, Staff, Employees, Deputy Clerks

Kentucky Supreme Court

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2024-SC-0546
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Disposition: MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT AFFIRMING

Combined Opinion

IMPORTANT NOTICE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED OPINION

THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED “NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.”
PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, RAP 40(D), THIS
OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE
CITED OR USED AS BINDING PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER
CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE; HOWEVER,
UNPUBLISHED KENTUCKY APPELLATE DECISIONS,
RENDERED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2003, MAY BE CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT IF THERE IS NO PUBLISHED
OPINION THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE ISSUE
BEFORE THE COURT. OPINIONS CITED FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT SHALL BE SET OUT AS AN
UNPUBLISHED DECISION IN THE FILED DOCUMENT AND A
COPY OF THE ENTIRE DECISION SHALL BE TENDERED ALONG
WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES TO
THE ACTION.
RENDERED: MARCH 19, 2026
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky
2024-SC-0546-MR

REBEKAH A. ATKINS APPELLANT

ON APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS
V. NO. 2024-CA-0872
JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
NO. 24-CI-004698

OFFICE OF THE JEFFERSON APPELLEES
COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK DAVID L.
NICHOLSON -- CIRCUIT COURT
CLERK, STAFF, EMPLOYEES,
DEPUTY CLERKS

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

AFFIRMING

Rebekah A. Atkins, pro se, appeals pursuant to RAP 1 55 from an order of

the Kentucky Court of Appeals which denied her motion to proceed in forma

pauperis relative to a tendered motion to reconsider an earlier order dismissing

her appeal as moot. We affirm.

On July 8, 2024, Atkins moved the Jefferson Circuit Court to proceed in

forma pauperis in filing a “Verified Complaint for Declaratory Relief,

Injunctions, and Judgments for Access to Unified’s CMS via Public Access

1 Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Terminals (for Disclosure of Public Court Records).” Accompanying same,

Atkins tendered a verified complaint, a motion requesting a temporary

injunction, a motion seeking an expedited hearing, and a motion for the trial

court to conduct an in camera review. Before the trial court entered a ruling

on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and without Atkins paying the

required filing fee, the Circuit Clerk filed Atkins’s complaint and her three

motions.

On July 9, 2024, the trial court entered two orders, the first denying

Atkins’s request for indigent status and the second denying her remaining

motions. The latter order contained further explanation for the denial of the

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The following day, Atkins filed a motion

seeking a hearing on all of her motions and a motion seeking clarification of the

trial court’s denial of her in forma pauperis motion. The trial court denied

these motions as well.

Atkins timely appealed the denial of her in forma pauperis motion to the

Court of Appeals pursuant to RAP 55, CR 2 5.05(4), Gabbard v. Lair, 528 S.W.2d

675 (Ky. 1975), and Bush ex rel. Bush v. O’Daniel, 700 S.W.2d 402 (Ky. 1985). 3

Upon determining that the trial court’s denial of Atkins’s motion was entered

after the circuit clerk had already filed Atkins’s pleadings, the Court of Appeals

concluded the issue was moot and dismissed the appeal.

2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
3 Atkins also appealed the denial of her other motions. That appeal was

dismissed as being improperly taken from an interlocutory order.

2
Undeterred, Atkins filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on a tendered motion to reconsider dismissal of her appeal. The Court of

Appeals denied the motion for failure to comply with the appellate rules and

because Atkins had not been “adversely affected by a decision” of the Court of

Appeals as contemplated under RAP 43(D)(1) as the dismissal was based on

Atkins having already received the relief she sought, thereby rendering the

matter moot. This appeal followed.

Atkins offers little of substance in her pleadings before this Court which

are instead riddled with references to unsubstantiated allegations of fraud,

bias, “counterfeit” orders by “shadow judges,” and “unlawful and illegal

conduct” by the “lawless” Court of Appeals, trial court, and circuit court clerk’s

office. Aside from these scurrilous and sensational claims, Atkins wholly fails

to address or indicate how or why the decision of the Court of Appeals is in

error. Upon review, we conclude it was not.

First, even a cursory examination of Atkins’s latest motion to proceed in

forma pauperis reveals the Court of Appeals correctly concluded it failed to

comply with RAP 54(A)(1) as it was not notarized nor sworn to or affirmed

before an appropriate officer as set forth in CR 43.13, and thus cannot qualify

as a “motion with an affidavit.” Denial on this basis alone would be sufficient.

We also note that, although not relied upon by the Court of Appeals in its

decision, Atkins is not a resident of Kentucky which is a prerequisite for being

deemed a “poor person” under KRS 453.190 who may be permitted to

prosecute or defend an action without payment of costs.

3
However, and perhaps even more importantly, beyond the technical

violation of our Rules and potentially her status as a non-resident, as the Court

of Appeals correctly observed, Atkins has not been aggrieved nor “adversely

affected by a decision of the . . . Court of Appeals rendered by order.” RAP

43(D)(1). Therefore, her motion for reconsideration was improper at the outset

and her motion seeking pauper status was nothing more than surplusage.

At bottom, the Jefferson Circuit Court Clerk unqualifiedly filed Atkins’s

complaint and motions and caused a civil summons to be issued in the

absence of payment of the filing fee or an order from the trial court granting the

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. “[I]f the clerk receives the document

without indicating that it is not being accepted as ‘filed’ or that it will not be

docketed until the fee is paid, it is effectively filed.” Ritchie v. Mann, 500

S.W.2d 62, 64 (Ky. 1973). Thus, Atkins’s action was officially commenced, CR

3.01, and the trial court’s denial of her motion for pauper status the following

day could not and did not operate to “un-file” her pleadings. This is made more

evident by the trial court’s ruling on the merits of her underlying claims.

The August 21, 2024, order dismissing Atkins’s appeal as moot concisely

and clearly articulated as much and indicated Atkins had received in the

circuit court the exact relief sought on appeal, to wit, the filing of her complaint

and motions and a ruling on the merits of same. Thus, dismissal of the appeal

was correct and did not negatively impact Atkins in any way. Reconsideration

of the order was an unavailable remedy. Nevertheless, Atkins once again

4
received the benefit of having the merits of her motion ruled upon without

being designated a pauper nor paying the appropriate filing fee.

While Atkins is plainly displeased with the outcomes throughout these

proceedings, she has failed to elucidate any error committed by the Court of

Appeals. A litigant’s mere displeasure with a ruling is an insufficient basis

upon which to grant relief. The roots of her complaints sprout from incorrect

premises and fundamental misapprehensions of the nature and scope of the

rulings which have been handed down. This is an unfortunate downside for

pro se litigants who are not versed in the science of the law. 4

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

affirmed.

All sitting. All concur.

4 We note, however, that Atkins is not an inexperienced litigator. While not
intended to be an exhaustive or a complete list of Atkins’s litigation history, several
notable citations will illustrate the point. In Atkins v. Holzbog, 203 N.E.3d 1052, 1053
(Ind. Ct. App. 2023), it was noted that in the previous five years, Atkins had initiated
sixteen appeals and had also filed fifteen original actions in the Indiana Supreme
Court. Many of those actions appear to raise nearly identical claims against various
circuit court clerks as those raised in the instant action. She has also raised similar
claims against the clerks’ offices of the United States District and Bankruptcy Courts
for the Western District of Kentucky, Atkins v. Stivers, Nos. 21-5798/5799, 2021 WL
7084872 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2021), and the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Atkins v. Sharpe, 854 Fed.App’x. 73 (7th Cir. 2021). She
has also filed suit against each of the district court and magistrate judges of the
Western District of Kentucky, Atkins v. Stivers, No. 3:21-CV-470-RGJ, 2021 WL
3374989 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 3, 2021), as well as all of the judges of the Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit and all of the district and magistrate judges in the Southern
District of Indiana. Atkins v. Sykes, 1:21-CV-02161-JED, 2021 WL 4287357 (S.D.
Ind. Sept. 21, 2021).

5
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:

Rebekah A. Atkins, pro se

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES:

David L. Nicholson
Jefferson County Circuit Clerk

6