Azubuko v. Framingham State

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Plaintiff's Request for Relief From Judgment. No additional motions filed by, or on behalf of Azubuko will be considered in this case. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 6/11/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mtb)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

CHUKWUMA AZUBUKO,

14
v.

15
16

CASE 01-CV-2258 W (POR)
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
UNDER RULE 60(b) [DOC. 15]

Plaintiff,

FRAMINGHAM STATE COLLEGE,

17

Defendant.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On December 7, 2001, Plaintiff Chukwuma Azubuko, proceeding pro se, filed suit
1
in this Court against Framingham State College. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) Azubuko appeared
to allege various state and federal claims against professors and administration at
Framingham State College. (See id.) On December 11, 2001, the Court sua sponte
dismissed Azubuko’s complaint without prejudice for improper venue, because it was clear
from the complaint that both Azubuko and Framingham State College resided in
Massachusetts, and all events relevant to the complaint occurred in Massachusetts.
(Dism. Order [Doc. 2]); see Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).
1

Framingham State College was never served in this action.
-1-

01cv2258w

1

In the nearly eleven years since this Court dismissed Azubuko’s complaint,

2 Azubuko has filed four motions to re-open his case under Federal Rule of Civil
3 Procedure 60(b). (See Mots. Re-open [Docs. 4, 5, 13, 15].) To this point, the Court has
4 consistently rejected those motions for failure to follow the procedural rules of the
5 United States District Court for the Southern District of California. (See id.) On one
6 occasion, in 2002, Azubuko appealed this Court’s rejection of his motion to re-open to
7 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Not. Appeal [Doc. 6].) The Ninth Circuit
8 summarily affirmed this Court’s decision. (Ninth Cir. Order [Doc. 12].)
9

Azubuko has recently filed another motion to re-open his case, his fourth overall.

10 (Fourth Mot. Re-open [Doc. 15].)

The fourth motion, like the others, is largely

11 incomprehensible and fails to address the single reason that his case was dismissed in
12 2001: improper venue. (See id.) Therefore, the Court DENIES Azubuko’s request to re13 open his case under Rule 60(b). No additional motions filed by, or on behalf of
14 Azubuko will be considered in this case.
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18 DATED: June 11, 2012
19
20

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

01cv2258w