Azubuko v. Boston Police Office #75647 et al

Filing 4

Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff Azubuko's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot; This action is DISMISSED in its entirety; Plaintiff Azubuko may not seek to reopen t his action unless he first pays the $7,000.00 in monetary sanctions owed, or unless he files a motion to reopen through a duly-licensed attorney; and Plaintiff Azubuko is WARNED that further violations of this Courts Orders may result in the imposition of additional monetary sanctions, as well as the institution of contempt proceedings against him.(PSSA, 1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO,
Plaintiff,
V.
BOSTON POLICE OFFICER #75647,
ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-11140-DJC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL
CASPER, J.
I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Azubuko (“Azubuko”) has been found by several

judges of this Court to be an abusive litigant.1

As a result, he

has been enjoined from filing civil actions in this Court without
first obtaining permission from a judicial officer.

In order to

circumvent the Order enjoining him, Azubuko has engaged in a
pattern of filing lawsuits in other districts, for the sole
purpose of having those cases transferred into this Court.

As a

result, a further Order issued modifying the Order enjoining
Azubuko.

See Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 8 at 8), Azubuko

v. Empire Insurance Company, et al., C.A. 07-11958-EFH (providing

1

See Judge Saris’s Memorandum and Order in Azubuko v.
Commonwealth Auction Association, 03mc10053-PBS, (12/17/03
(Docket No. 3)), and Azubuko v. National Magazine Exchange,
03mc10063-PBS (12/17/03 (Docket No. 2)) detailing a list
(although not a fully inclusive list) of his cases. Records
indicate that Azubuko has filed dozens of cases in this Court
directly or through a transfer-in from another district. Several
other courts have recognized Azubuko’s extensive litigation
history and some have also imposed filing restrictions on him.
Additionally, several monetary sanctions have been imposed, but
remain unpaid.

that any transferred-in civil actions would be immediately
closed, with a notation on the docket).
Subsequently, on May 28, 2009, Azubuko filed, directly in
this Court, a new civil complaint styled as an Emergency Writ of
Mandamus/Injunction seeking to challenge the suspension or
revocation of his driver’s license.
Miscellaneous Business Docket.

The matter was opened as a

See In Re Enjoined Litigant

Azubuko, MBD 09-10152-DPW.
On July 12, 2010, Judge Woodlock issued a Memorandum and
Order (Docket No. 12) denying Azubuko’s motion for leave to file
a lawsuit, motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
motion for emergency injunctive relief.

Additionally, Judge

Woodlock found that, in addition to monetary sanctions and an
order enjoining him, further sanctions against Azubuko were
warranted for his continued abusive litigation practices.
Accordingly, Judge Woodlock modified the prior Orders of
Enjoinment, directing, in relevant part, that:
Until Azubuko first pays the monetary sanctions
previously imposed by this Court (totaling $7,000.00),2
except if the pleading is filed by a duly licensed
2

A $5,000.00 sanction was imposed by Judge Young (suspended
until another frivolous case was filed; thereafter Judge Zobel
and Judge O’Toole found subsequent frivolous cases, so the
$5,000.00 is reinstated). Judge Lindsay imposed an additional
fine of $1.000.00 See Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 12) dated
April 6, 2006 in Azubuko v. Suffolk Superior Court, C.A. 0510609-RCL. A $1,000.00 further sanction was imposed by Judge
Harrington on November 1, 2007, as well as a modification. See
Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 8) in Azubuko v. Empire
Insurance Company, et al., C.A. 07-11958-EFH.
2

attorney in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, Azubuko
is not permitted to file any pleadings in this Court
seeking to assert new claims or to obtain any kind of
relief. This Order does not apply to any complaint or
other pleading alleging either that he is in imminent
danger of serious bodily harm, or other circumstances
clearly indicating that it would be unconscionable to
deny him an opportunity to seek redress, provided he
demonstrates a factual and legal basis for such
assertion. Any motion for leave to file a lawsuit must
be accompanied by a certificate of good faith, and must
demonstrate good cause for permitting a lawsuit to
proceed. Any pleading submitted to the Court for
filing that does not comport with the prior Orders of
the Court and this Order, shall not be filed or stamped
received by the Clerk, but shall be returned to
Azubuko.
Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 12 at 5-6)(emphasis added).3
Thereafter, on June 24, 2011, the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland transferred this civil rights
action filed by Azubuko in that District.

See Azubuko v. Boston

Police Officer #75647, et al., 1:11-cv-01671-JKB.4

Azubuko’s

civil action names as defendants two Boston Police Officers, a
Clerk-Magistrate, two Deputy Clerks, and a Massachusetts judge.

3

On September 10, 2010, Judge Woodlock denied Azubuko’s
request to reopen his earlier cases, or to reinstate the MBD
action. See Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 14). Later, on
September 27, 2010, Judge Woodlock issued an Order denying
Azubuko’s request for a three-judge court, and further warned him
that he could be subject to additional monetary sanctions. See
Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 18).
4

This action was one of two transferred by the District of
Maryland to this Court. See Azubuko v. Town of Brookline Public
Schools Superintendent, et al., C.A. 11-11129-DPW (transferred-in
June 23, 2011)(challenging right of Azubuko (as a non-resident
who worked in the Town of Brookline), to have his child attend
Brookline Public Schools)).
3

He contests a traffic citation received in July 2009 in Boston,
as well as the fees of the state court for a hearing before a
Clerk-Magistrate, and for an appeal for a hearing before a judge.
Along with the Complaint, Azubuko filed a Motion for Leave
to Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2).
II.

DISCUSSION
It is clear that the District of Maryland has absolutely no

connection with the matters raised in Azubuko’s Complaint,
concerning incidents allegedly occurring in Massachusetts.

In

light of this, no other logical conclusion can be reached but
that Azubuko (a self-proclaimed Boston resident for the past 25
years), filed his Complaint in another District Court solely as a
means to circumvent the Orders enjoining him in this Court.
Indeed, in a cover letter to the Office of the Clerk in the
District of Maryland, Azubuko asks that his civil action not be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts.
(Docket No. 1-1).

See Exhibit

Further, in the Memorandum issued in

connection with the transfer of this action from the District of
Maryland, United States District Judge James K. Bredar stated
that there was no discernible basis for Azubuko’s filing of the
action in Maryland, and further stated that: “Upon review of the
court records in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, it is clear why plaintiff has chosen
to file his civil actions in this court.

4

He has been barred from

filing claims in the Massachusetts court because of his past
abusive filings.”

Memorandum (Docket No. 3-1, dated June 22,

2011).
Azubuko has already been warned against such improper
litigation practices, and his contumacious behavior in ignoring
the Orders of this Court serves to waste scarce judicial
resources, to the prejudice of other litigants.

This Court will

not permit Azubuko to continue his abusive litigation practices,
and Azubuko is WARNED that further violations of this Court’s
Orders may result in the imposition of additional monetary
sanctions, as well as the institution of contempt proceedings
against him.
In light of the above, in accordance with Judge Harrington’s
Order enjoining Azubuko,5 this action is hereby DISMISSED.
Finally, in accordance with Judge Woodlock’s Order, this action

5

See Azubuko v. Empire Insurance Company, et al., C.A. 0711958-EFH. Judge Harrington’s Order provided that:
Upon receipt of any civil action filed by the Plaintiff
in another District and subsequently ordered
transferred to this District, the Clerk’s Office is
directed to open the matter as a transferred action,
and immediately close the action noting on the docket
that the transferred action is automatically dismissed
in view of the Order Enjoining Plaintiff. Should
Plaintiff seek to re-open the closed transferred
action, he must file a Motion to Reopen and demonstrate
good cause, under the penalties of perjury, why the
action should be reopened.
Memorandum and Order (Docket No. 8 at 8).
5

may not be reopened unless Azubuko first pays the monetary
sanctions previously imposed by this Court (totaling $7,000.00),
or files his motion to reopen (or some other pleading of this
ilk) through a duly-licensed attorney in accordance with Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11.6
In view of this ruling, Azubuko’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that:
1.

Plaintiff Azubuko’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket No. 2) is DENIED as moot;

2.

This action is DISMISSED in its entirety;

3.

Plaintiff Azubuko may not seek to reopen this action unless
he first pays the $7,000.00 in monetary sanctions owed, or
unless he files a motion to reopen through a duly-licensed
attorney; and

4.

Plaintiff Azubuko is WARNED that further violations of this
Court’s Orders may result in the imposition of additional
monetary sanctions, as well as the institution of contempt
proceedings against him.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Denise J. Casper
DENISE J. CASPER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: June 28, 2011

6

Should Azubuko contend that he is a duly-licensed attorney,
he must provide a certified copy of proof of his admission to a
Bar of a State in the United States.
6