Azubuko v. Massachusetts Supreme Judical Court et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying 15 Third Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 7/2/2012. (mb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff, vs. MASSACHUSETTS SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT and DORCHESTER’S DISTRICT COURT, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. CIV-11-503-D ORDER Plaintiff has filed a third motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 15] of this Court’s June 23, 2011 Order [Doc. No. 7] dismissing this case without prejudice. Although Plaintiff labels his motion as the second motion seeking reconsideration, the Court file establishes that he filed two previous motions to reconsider, and both were denied. On May 10, 2012, the Court filed an Order [Doc. No. 11] denying his first motion for reconsideration. On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 12], and the Court denied that motion in its June 11, 2012 Order [Doc. No. 14]. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 22, 2012. The Court has reviewed the motion, and finds that it contains no new argument or authority which could support a proper motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Instead, it contains the same arguments rejected by the Court in its Order [Doc. No. 11] denying the initial motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks in the instant motion, and his motion [Doc. No. 15] is DENIED. This action remains closed.1 IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2012. 1 The Plaintiff’s continuous filing of motions for reconsideration likely violates Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b), which could support monetary sanctions under Rule 11(c). Any future violative conduct by Plaintiff will result in the consideration of such sanctions by the Court. 2

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?