AZUBUKO v. PARKING OFFICER NO. 241 et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum opinion, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's amended complaint, Dkt. 5 . See attached document for details. A separate order will issue. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 03/04/2021. (lcrdm1)
Case 1:20-cv-03383-RDM Document 6 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 20-3383 (RDM)
v.
PARKING OFFICER NO. 241, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Chukwuma E. Azubuko, who lives in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, Dkt. 5 at
4, and is proceeding pro se, brings this case to challenge the grounds on which he received a
parking ticket in Boston from two unnamed defendants, “Parking Officer No. 241” and
“Parking Clerk – City of Boston,” Dkt. 1 at 1–2. He alleges discrimination and other illegal
activity in violation of several Constitutional amendments, as well as a number of federal laws
and Massachusetts state laws. Dkt. 5 at 6–7. On December 9, 2020, the Court dismissed
Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and
12(b)(6). Dkt. 2; Dkt. 3. On February 1, 2021, Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint. Dkt.
4. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend but cautioned that his amended complaint must
“(1) identify a defendant by name so that a summons may issue, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(b); (2) explain why venue is proper in the District of Columbia; and (3) state
a claim under federal law sufficient to sustain the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Minute
Order (Feb. 2, 2021).
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Dkt. 5, addresses none of these issues. Plaintiff does
not name a defendant but requests that the Court authorize pre-service discovery to allow
Case 1:20-cv-03383-RDM Document 6 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 4
Plaintiff to learn the identity of the Boston employee with badge number 241. Id. at 1–2. For
the reasons explained below, the Court will dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6) and will deny Plaintiff’s request for pre-service
discovery as futile.
To start, the amended complaint, once again, does not contain a “short and plain
statement of [Plaintiff’s] claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Although the amended complaint mentions a raft of laws, Dkt. 5 at 6–7, it offers no coherent
theory or explanation for how any of them apply to the issuance of the parking ticket at issue
here, which Plaintiff apparently was not even required to pay. See Dkt. 1 at 1 (explaining that
Plaintiff “woke up and noticed a parking violation ticket affixed to his car’s windshield”); id.
at 13 (hearing disposition dismissing the ticket). Nor does Plaintiff explain how a parking
ticket—paid or unpaid—would entitle him to the substantial damages and extraordinary
injunctive relief he seeks, see id. at 3–4 (asking “the Court to order [a] moratorium on parking
citations in the City of Boston” and seeking damages of $1 million and $1.5 million), or,
indeed, how an unpaid parking ticket could have resulted in a cognizable injury for purposes
of Article III. Accordingly, the amended complaint does not satisfy Rule 8’s goal to
“ensure[] that the opposing party will receive ‘fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.’” Jones v. Changsila, 271 F. Supp. 3d 9, 21 (D.D.C. 2017)
(quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)).
For similar reasons, the amended complaint also runs afoul of Rule 12(b)(6). “To
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Neither Plaintiff’s
2
Case 1:20-cv-03383-RDM Document 6 Filed 03/04/21 Page 3 of 4
original complaint nor his amended complaint alleges facts that would allow the Court to
discern the substance of Plaintiff’s claims or to determine whether, if true, his allegations
would entitle him to relief. See Brown v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 164 F. Supp. 3d 33,
35 (D.D.C. 2016).
Finally, the Court is unpersuaded that it should authorize pre-service, third-party
discovery regarding the identity of “Parking Officer No. 241.” Most significantly, the
amended complaint fails to state a claim, and identifying the unnamed defendants would do
nothing to resolve that difficulty. Moreover, even if the complaint stated a claim, it is unlikely
that pre-service discovery would advance the resolution of the case. To be sure, improper
venue is a waivable defense, see Neirbo Co., v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165,
168 (1939), but, even if the Court were to authorize pre-service discovery to permit Plaintiff to
identify the unnamed defendant, it is highly unlikely that Plaintiff’s amended complaint would
survive a motion to dismiss for improper venue, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). “The question
whether venue is proper ‘is generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391,’ which ‘states that
[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law . . . this section shall govern the venue of all civil actions
brought in district courts of the United States.’” King v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., 210 F.
Supp. 3d 130, 135 (D.D.C. 2016) (emphasis omitted; alteration in original) (quoting Atl.
Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 55 (2013)).
Thus, “the court must determine whether the case falls within one of the three categories set
out in § 1391(b)” to determine if venue is proper. Id. That provision provides that venue is
proper in the district “in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the
[s]tate in which the district is located;” in the district “in which a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred;” or, if no such district exists, “any judicial
3
Case 1:20-cv-03383-RDM Document 6 Filed 03/04/21 Page 4 of 4
district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b). Here, it is very unlikely that either of the unnamed defendants, Boston municipal
employees, lives in the District of Columbia, and none of the events at issue took place in the
District of Columbia. Other than an unsupported allegation that he “cannot get justice from”
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Dkt. 5 at 4, Plaintiff has
offered no reason why the case should be brought here. As a result, and because, in any event,
the amended complaint fails to satisfy Rules 8 or 12(b)(6), permitting pre-service discovery
would be futile.
The Court will, therefore, sua sponte dismiss the amended complaint and will deny
Plaintiff’s request for pre-service discovery.
A separate order will issue.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: March 4, 2021
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?