IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-1633-D

)

JUDGE HENRY LEE ADAMS, et al., )

Defendants. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in

implementation thereof, this cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type of Case: This is a civil rights action brought by a pro se litigant.

Parties: According to the complaint, Plaintiff is a resident of Boston, Massachusetts. 

Defendants are federal judges. The court has not issued process in this case, pending

preliminary screening.

Findings and Conclusions: The court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The complaint is, thus, subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B), which imposes a screening responsibility on the district court. Section

1915(e)(2)(B) reads in pertinent part as follows:

Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid,

the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the

action or appeal – 

(i) is frivolous or malicious; 

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be

granted; or 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01633-D Document 5 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 26
2

(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

In this action, Plaintiff seeks to sue out-of state federal judges for rulings issued against

him in his prior lawsuits. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. 

Judges enjoy absolute immunity from liability for monetary damages in connection with

actions taken in their judicial capacity. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10 (1991); Stump v.

Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355-56 (1977); see also Brandley v. Keeshan, 64 F.3d 196, 200-201

(5th Cir. 1995). Based on the facts alleged in the complaint, it is clear that all the Defendants

named in the complaint were acting in their judicial capacity and took no action “in the complete

absence of all jurisdiction.” See Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11-12. Moreover, if Plaintiff is dissatisfied

with the disposition of his actions filed in other federal district courts, the appropriate course of

action is to pursue an appeal from the judgment entered in each action, rather than to ask this

court to intervene or render judgment in his favor. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed

with prejudice as frivolous and because it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is

immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii). 

A search of the United States Party/Case Index indicates that Plaintiff is an active pro se

litigant in federal courts nationwide, having filed 39 cases since 2000. 

The court has an obligation to protect the orderly administration of justice and can issue

an injunction to discharge that duty. Urban v. United Nations, 768 F.2d 1497, 1500

(D.C.Cir.1985). Sanctions also are appropriate when a pro se litigant has a history of submitting

multiple frivolous claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 787 (D.C.Cir.

1981). Litigants who abuse the judicial process are "not entitled to sue and appeal without

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01633-D Document 5 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 27
3

paying the normal filing fees--indeed, are not entitled to sue and appeal, period." Free v. United

States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536 (7th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). Plaintiff should be warned that if

he persists in filing frivolous lawsuits, the court may impose monetary sanctions and bar him

from bringing any further actions of any kind without prior court approval. See Ruston v. United

States, 2004 WL 2187120, *2 (N.D.Tex. 2004) (issuing similar warning to pro se litigant with

history of filing frivolous lawsuits); Scott v. Stephenson, 2002 WL 1432373 at *3 (N.D.Tex. Jul.

1, 2002) (same).

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this action be dismissed with prejudice

as frivolous and because it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (iii).

It is further recommended that Plaintiff be warned that sanctions may be imposed if he

persists in filing frivolous lawsuits.

A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff Chukwma E. Azubuko, P.O.

Box 1351, Boston, MA 02117-1351.

Signed September 29, 2005.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that

you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this

recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.

1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01633-D Document 5 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 28
4

conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district

judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law accepted by the district court.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01633-D Document 5 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 29