Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-02258/USCOURTS-casd-3_01-cv-02258-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHUKWUMA AZUBUKO,

Plaintiff,

CASE 01-CV-2258 W (POR)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

UNDER RULE 60(b) [DOC. 15]

v.

FRAMINGHAM STATE COLLEGE,

Defendant.

On December 7, 2001, Plaintiff Chukwuma Azubuko, proceeding pro se, filed suit

in this Court against Framingham State College. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) Azubuko appeared 1

to allege various state and federal claims against professors and administration at

Framingham State College. (See id.) On December 11, 2001, the Court sua sponte

dismissed Azubuko’s complaint without prejudicefor improper venue, because it was clear

from the complaint that both Azubuko and Framingham State College resided in

Massachusetts, and all events relevant to the complaint occurred in Massachusetts. 

(Dism. Order [Doc. 2]); see Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 

 Framingham State College was never served in this action.

1

- 1 - 01cv2258w

Case 3:01-cv-02258-W-POR Document 16 Filed 06/11/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In the nearly eleven years since this Court dismissed Azubuko’s complaint,

Azubuko has filed four motions to re-open his case under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b). (See Mots. Re-open [Docs. 4, 5, 13, 15].) To this point, the Court has

consistently rejected those motions for failure to follow the procedural rules of the

United States District Court for the Southern District of California. (See id.) On one

occasion, in 2002, Azubuko appealed this Court’s rejection of his motion to re-open to

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Not. Appeal [Doc. 6].) The Ninth Circuit

summarily affirmed this Court’s decision. (Ninth Cir. Order [Doc. 12].) 

Azubuko has recently filed another motion to re-open his case, his fourth overall. 

(Fourth Mot. Re-open [Doc. 15].) The fourth motion, like the others, is largely

incomprehensible and fails to address the single reason that his case was dismissed in

2001: improper venue. (See id.) Therefore, the Court DENIES Azubuko’s request to reopen his case under Rule 60(b). No additional motions filed by, or on behalf of

Azubuko will be considered in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2012

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

- 2 - 01cv2258w

Case 3:01-cv-02258-W-POR Document 16 Filed 06/11/12 Page 2 of 2