Azubuko v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 11

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order. Plaintiff is warned that any further motions for reconsideration or relief from judgment in this case that are deemed to be "frivolous or vexatious" likely will be met with a substantial monetary sanction. Signed by District Judge J. Garvan Murtha on 8/12/2011. (kak)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
DISTRICT OF VERMONT
Chukwuma E. Azubuko,
Plaintiff,
v.
Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

File No. 1:09-cv-6-jgm

ORDER
(Doc. 10)
On January 9, 2009, plaintiff Chukwuma Azubuko filed a pro
se action in this Court against defendant Liberty Mutual
Insurance Company.

Azubuko’s allegations pertained to the

threatened cancellation of his automobile insurance policy.

On

January 23, 2009, the Court granted Azubuko’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, but DISMISSED the case without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction and/or improper venue.
Azubuko appealed the Court’s ruling.

(Doc. 2.)
On May 15, 2009, the

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied his
appeal because he failed to comply with that court’s standing
order, issued in a previous case, requiring him “to petition the
Court for leave to appeal prior to filing any future appeals . .
. .”

(Doc. 9.)

There was no further activity in the case until

Azubuko filed his most recent motion, which is currently before
the Court, for relief from judgment.

(Doc. 10.)

Azubuko states he is seeking relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), which provides:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party
or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has
been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively
is no longer equitable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5).

Nothing in Azubuko’s motion suggests

this Rule applies in his case.

Specifically, he makes no mention

of a judgment that has been satisfied, and offers no argument on
the basis of equity.
Construing Azubuko’s pro se filing liberally, the Court also
considers other provisions within Rule 60.

As to Rule 60(b)(1),

(2), and (3), Azubuko has filed his motion long after the oneyear limitations period set forth for those subsections.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

See

Furthermore, as another federal

district court determined with respect to a similar motion
submitted by Azubuko, “a careful review of Mr. Azubuko’s motion
reveals no legitimate basis for such a late-filed challenge to
the final judgment in this case or, for that matter, for any
challenge at all.”

Azubuko v. Dedham Massachusetts Police

Comm’r, No. 1:06-cv-00152-JAW, 2011 WL 2224819, at *1 (D. Mass.
June 7, 2011).
This Court concluded previously that Azubuko’s allegations
have no “factual or legal connection to the State of Vermont,”
and now sees no basis for disturbing that conclusion.
for relief from judgment (Doc. 10) is therefore DENIED.

The motion

2

The Court further notes Azubuko has been warned that any
“frivolous or vexatious” filings may be met with sanctions, and
future filings of any sort will not be permitted without prior
leave of court.

(Doc. 2 at 3.)

This warning is now reiterated.

In particular, any further motions for reconsideration or relief
from judgment in this case that are deemed to be “frivolous or
vexatious” likely will be met with a substantial monetary
sanction.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Brattleboro, in the District of Vermont, this
12 th day of August, 2011.

/s/ J. Garvan Murtha
Honorable J. Garvan Murtha
United States District Judge

3