Okereke v. Boston Police Hackney Division et al

Filing 11

Judge Rya W. Zobel: ORDER entered denying 10 Motion to Vacate. Plaintiff is reminded that she is expected to comply with the filing restrictions contained in this Courts September 19, 2012 Memorandum and Order. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-11626-RWZ

PRECIOUS OKEREKE
v.
BOSTON POLICE HACKNEY DIVISION, et al.

ORDER: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (No. 10)
December 10, 2012
ZOBEL, D.J.
By Memorandum and Order dated September 19, 2012, plaintiff’s complaint was
dismissed. See Docket No. 8. Because of her history of groundless litigation,1 plaintiff
1

The Court has taken the opportunity to review the numerous cases in which
Okereke was a plaintiff in other district courts. See Okereke v. Judge Raymond
Brassard, C.A. No. 11-02781-LAB-WMC (S.D.Calif. 2012) (dismissed for failure to state
a claim, Feb. 14, 2012); Okereke v. U.S. Magistrate Judge Sherrill, et al., C.A. No. 10371-VLB (D. Conn. 2010) (dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper
venue, Apr. 14, 2010); Okereke v. State of New Hampshire, C.A. No. 04-358-RH-WCS
(N.D. Fla. 2004) (dismissed for failure to state a claim, Oct. 26, 2004); Okereke v. Mass.
College of Pharmacy & Allied Health Sciences, C.A. No. 02-3460-CAM (N.D. Georgia
2002) (granting defendant’s motion to dismiss, Aug. 20, 2003); Okereke v.
Massachusetts Police Commissioner, C.A. No. 04-74050-JAC-PJK (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29,
2005) (dismissing for failure to respond to show cause order, Apr. 29, 2005), denying
2008 motion to reopen, Jun. 5, 2008; Okereke v. Massachusetts’ Registry of Motor
Vehicles, No. 08-356-NAM-GHL (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (order transferring to District of
Massachusetts, Apr. 10, 2008); Okereke, et al. v. Arbella Mutual Insurance Company, et
al., C.A. No. 05-946-FLW-AMD (D. N.J. 2005) (denying IFP Order and recognizing
improper venue, Feb. 22, 2005); Okereke, et al. v. University of Massachusetts, 05-23
(W.D. Oak, 2005) 05-1760-C (order dismissing as frivolous Feb. 23, 2005); Okereke v.
Stermbridge, No. 08-2127-KMW (S.D.N.Y 2008) (dismissing, Mar. 3, 2008; see also
07/25/08 Order warning Okereke that she could be enjoined from filing further actions
absent permission from a district judge, and/or that she could be subject to monetary
sanctions should she make any additional frivolous and/or unreasonable submissions
(Docket No.8)); Okereke v. Moye, No. 05-526 (E.D. Va. 2005) (order dismissing as
frivolous, May 18, 2005); Okereke v. Massachusetts’ College of Pharmacy & Allied

was enjoined from filing any additional or new claims, cases, complaints, or other
documents in this Court, in any manner, way or form, without first obtaining the written
approval of a judge of this Court. Id. The Court’s Order did not preclude plaintiff from
filing a timely notice of appeal and/or papers solely in furtherance of such an appeal. Id.
However, the Court certified that any appeal would not taken in good faith and advised
plaintiff that should she seek to appeal, she must pay the appellate filing fee or she
must seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit. Id.
Plaintiff has not filed a notice of appeal and has chosen to file a motion for relief
from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4)(6). See Docket No. 10. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b) provides a mechanism for setting aside a judgment in certain
circumstances. Rule 60(b) is considered a “vehicle for extraordinary relief,” and motions
attempting to utilize such a tool should be allowed only under “exceptional
circumstances.” Davila-Alvarez v. Escuela de Medicina Universidad Central del Caribe,
257 F.3d. 58, 64 (1st Cir. 2001).

Health Sciences, D. Vt. No. 2008-142-jgm (order dismissing as frivolous, Jul. 31, 2008);
Azubuko, et al. v. Skerritt, No. 202-23 (D. Conn. 2010) (dismissing pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Apr. 29, 2010); Azubuko, et al. v. Urban Edge Property
Management, No. 04-481-RH-WCS (N.D. Fla. 2005) (transferred to the District of
Massachusetts, Jan. 5, 2005); Azubuko, et al. v. Judge Haggerty, No. 11-23332 (S.D.
Fla. 2011) (dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Sept. 19, 2011); Azubuko,
et al. v. Dedham Massachusets Police Commissioner, No. 06-152-JAW (D. Maine
2006) (dismissing as frivolous and for failing to state a claim pursuant, Dec. 28, 2006);
Azubuko, et al. v. Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, No. 05-969-FSH-PS (D. N.J.
2005) (dismissing as frivolous, Feb. 23, 2005); Azubuko, et al. v. State of New
Hampshire, No. 05-176-C (W.D. Oak. 2005) (dismissing as frivolous, Feb. 23, 2005);
and Azubuko, et al. v. Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership, No. 05-2012-R (N.D.
Tex. 2005) (transferred to the District of Massachusetts, Oct. 19, 2005).
2

As an initial matter, the Court notes that plaintiff’s motion does not comply with
this Court’s September 19th Memorandum and Order. The September 19th Order
stated that if plaintiff undertakes to file any additional papers in this Court, she must:
file a written petition seeking leave of court to do so. The petition must contain a
copy of [the September 19, 2012 Memorandum and Order] together with the
papers sought to be filed, and a certification under oath that there is a good faith
basis for their filing. The Clerk of Court shall accept the documents, mark them
received, and forward them to the Miscellaneous Business Docket Judge for
action on the petition.
See Docket No. 8.
As to the substance of the motion, contrary to plaintiff’s arguments, she is not
entitled to pursue this action either in the District of Massachusetts or the Southern
District of Florida. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff
is reminded that she is expected to comply with the filing restrictions contained in this
Court’s September 19, 2012 Memorandum and Order.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Rya W. Zobel
RYA W. ZOBEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3