Okereke v. Does 1-6 et al

Filing 31

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered denying 30 Plaintiff's Final Motion for Relief from Judgment. (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
Civil Action No.
)
16-12016-ADB
v.
)
)
SIX UNKNOWN BOSTON POLICE, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FINAL MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
PRECIOUS OKEREKE,

BURROUGHS, D.J.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Precious Okereke’s final
motion for relief from judgment.
BACKGROUND
By Memorandum and Order [ECF No. 20] dated January 24, 2017, the Court granted the
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 8, 10, 18], and dismissed this action in its entirety.
The Court found that, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, her Complaint
did not state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [ECF No. 20]. The Order reminded
Plaintiff that a 2012 Court Order precluded her from filing a notice of appeal without first
obtaining the written approval of a judge of this Court.
Three weeks later, on February 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment
[ECF No. 23]. On March 9, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment.
[ECF No. 27]. The Order again reminded Plaintiff that a 2012 Court Order precludes her from
filing documents without first obtaining the written approval of a judge of this Court.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Final Motion for Relief from Judgment filed pursuant
to Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [ECF No. 30]. Plaintiff characterizes
the Court’s March 9th Order as “queer” and complains that the denial of a jury trial “lends itself
to obstruction of justice.” Plaintiff states, among other things, that she does not intend to comply
with the September 19, 2012 Order issued in Okereke v. Boston Police Hackney Division, et al.,
C.A. No. 11-11626-RWZ (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2012), that requires her to first obtain the written
approval of a judge of this Court before filing any additional or new claims in this Court.The
Bournwood Hospital (whose true name is First Psychiatric Planners, Inc.) opposed the motion.
[ECF No. 29].
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, “[o]n motion and just
terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order or
proceeding . . . [if] the judgment is void[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). A judgment is void, and
may be set aside under Rule 60(b)(4), if the court lacked either subject matter jurisdiction or
jurisdiction over the defendant’s person, or when the court’s actions constitute a violation of due
process. O’Callaghan v. Shirazi, 204 F. App’x. 35, 37 (1st Cir. 2006).
DISCUSSION
As best can be gleaned from her motion, Plaintiff again seeks reconsideration of the
Court’s January 24, 2017 Memorandum and Order [ECF No. 20] granting Defendants’ Motions
to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As noted in the Court’s
March 9, 2017 Order, and as noted in Defendant’s opposition, there is no basis to vacate the
January 24, 2017 Memorandum and Order.

2

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Final Motion for Relief from Judgment [ECF No. 30] is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
Allison D. Burroughs
United States District Judge
Dated: June 8, 2017

3