UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chukwuma E. Azubuko

v. Civil No. 06-cv-323-SM

Kathleen E. Coffey, et al.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is pro se and in forma pauperis plaintiff

Chukwuma Azubuko’s complaint challenging proceedings in the

Massachusetts state and federal courts regarding the repayment of

Azubuko’s student loans. Azubuko names Kathleen E. Coffey, a

Judge in the Boston Municipal Court, West Roxbury Division,

Richard L. Walsh, Clerk-Magistrate of the Boston Municipal Court,

West Roxbury Division, Stephen Johnson, Deputy Suffolk County

Sheriff, and Attorney Timothy J. McCarthy. The matter is before

me for preliminary review to determine whether the complaint

states any claim upon which relief might be granted. See United

States District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local

Rule (“LR”) 4.3(d)(1)(B)(i). Because I find that it does not, I

recommend that the action be dismissed. 

Case 1:06-cv-00323-SM Document 7 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 9
2

Standard of Review

Under this Court’s local rules, when a plaintiff commences

an action pro se and in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge is

directed to conduct a preliminary review and to:

(i) report and recommend to the court that the 

filing be dismissed because the allegation of 

poverty is untrue, the action is frivolous or 

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a 

defendant who is immune from such relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); or it fails to establish 

subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(1); or

(ii) grant the party leave to file an amended 

filing in accordance with the magistrate judge’s 

directives; or

(iii) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), appoint 

a person to effect service.

LR 4.3(d)(1)(B). In conducting the preliminary review, the Court

construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Ayala Serrano v.

Lebron Gonzales, 909 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir. 1990) (following

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) to construe pro se

pleadings liberally in favor of the pro se party). “The policy

behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that

if they present sufficient facts, the court may intuit the

correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.” Ahmed 

Case 1:06-cv-00323-SM Document 7 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 9
3

v. Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997), cert. denied,

Ahmed v. Greenwood, 522 U.S. 1148 (1998).

At this preliminary stage of review, all factual assertions

made by the plaintiff and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom

must be accepted as true. See Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3

(1st Cir. 1996) (stating the “failure to state a claim” standard

of review and explaining that all “well-pleaded factual

averments,” not bald assertions, must be accepted as true). This

review ensures that pro se pleadings are given fair and

meaningful consideration. See Eveland v. Dir. of C.I.A., 843

F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 1988).

Background

The allegations in the complaint are, at best, convoluted

and difficult to understand. Construing the complaint liberally,

however, it appears that Azubuko describes a series of lawsuits

that were litigated in the Massachusetts state and federal courts

regarding the repayment (or nonrepayment) of Azubuko’s student

loans. It is not clear what actions he challenges of what

defendants, but all of the actions described occurred in the

context of litigation that occurred in the Massachusetts courts. 

Azubuko and all of the defendants to this action are located in

Case 1:06-cv-00323-SM Document 7 Filed 11/09/06 Page 3 of 9
4

Massachusetts, as was all the relevant state court litigation

with which this matter is concerned. 

Discussion

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal district court

lacks jurisdiction to hear claims asking the court to rule on and

reverse matters already decided by the state courts. Exxon Mobil

Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus., Inc., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); see

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 414-15 (1923) and

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,

476 (1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine states that a review of

a state court decision lies with superior state courts and then

with the United States Supreme Court. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476;

Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415. Simply put, a federal district court

does not have jurisdiction over an action that is essentially an

appeal of the findings and judgments of a state court. This

court lacks jurisdiction over any action wherein, if plaintiff

were to be granted relief, a prior judgment of the state court

would be reversed or voided. Mandel v. Town of Orleans, 326 F.3d

267, 271 (1st Cir. 2003). If plaintiff’s claims in the federal

court are “inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s

Case 1:06-cv-00323-SM Document 7 Filed 11/09/06 Page 4 of 9
5

decision, see Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, this Court does not have

jurisdiction to hear the matter. This is the case even if the

challenges to the lower court ruling are constitutional in

nature. Id. 

It appears that Azubuko is seeking a judgment in this Court

that would overturn or reverse the judgments entered in the

Massachusetts state courts during litigation concerning

plaintiff’s student loans. Even if there are claims in the

complaint that, if decided here, would not reverse a state court

decision, it is clear that all of the claims here are

“inextricably intertwined” with the state court’s decisions, and

therefore are subject to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Azubuko’s

claims and I recommend they be dismissed.

2. Abusive Litigation Practices

Azubuko has been enjoined from filing civil actions in the

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts as

a result of his vexatious filing practices there. Chukwu v.

Registry of Motor Vehicles, et al., C.A. No. 95-11661-WGY, docket

no. 13 (Order directing clerk not to accept for filing any

further documents tendered pro se by plaintiff unless certain

Case 1:06-cv-00323-SM Document 7 Filed 11/09/06 Page 5 of 9
1This case is one of four cases recently filed in this Court

by Azubuko, all of which would more appropriately have been

brought in the District of Massachusetts. See Azubuko v.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Civ. No. 06-266 (filed July 19,

2006); Azubuko v. Mass. Ass’t Att’y Gen., et al., Civ. No. 06-267

(filed July 19, 2006); Azubuko v. United States Court of Appeals

- Tenth Cir., Civ. No. 06-00333 (filed Sept. 7, 2006).

6

conditions were met) (D.Mass. Sept. 6, 1995). That Order was

reaffirmed in Azubuku v. Commonwealth Auction Ass’n, C.A. 03-

10053-PBS, docket no. 3 (Memorandum and Order) (D.Mass. Dec. 17,

2003) and Azubuko v. Suffolk Super. Ct., et al., C.A. No. 05-

10609-RCL, docket no. 12 (Order for dismissal) (D. Mass. Apr. 6,

2006). In an effort to circumvent the filing restrictions placed

upon him by the United States District Court for the District of

Massachusetts, Azubuko has filed actions in the Districts of

Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Delaware, Michigan, and now this

Court.1 These actions allege causes of action appropriately

brought in the District of Massachusetts, which has personal

jurisdiction over both the plaintiff and the defendants named by

plaintiff. 

A federal court may not sua sponte raise the issue of

personal jurisdiction as the basis for dismissing a case, as

personal jurisdiction is a waivable individual liberty right. 

McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107, 127 (1st Cir. 2005). 

Case 1:06-cv-00323-SM Document 7 Filed 11/09/06 Page 6 of 9
7

Azubuko, as a law school graduate, is aware, however, that should

the defendant in this case assert this Court’s lack of personal

jurisdiction as a defense, it would very likely be successful as

there is no apparent basis upon which this Court could exercise

personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this case absent the

defendant’s waiver. Accordingly, I find that the only possible

purpose Azubuko had in filing this matter in this Court was to

attempt to evade the filing restrictions he would face in the

District of Massachusetts.

“Federal courts plainly possess discretionary powers to

regulate the conduct of abusive litigants.” Cok v. Fam. Ct. of

R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 34 (1st Cir. 1993). This power encompasses

the Court’s ability to enjoin a pro se party from filing

frivolous and vexatious pleadings. See United States v. GomezRosario, 418 F.3d 90, 101 (1st Cir. 2005). Where a litigant has

demonstrated a “propensity to file repeated suits . . . involving

the same or similar claims” of a “frivolous or vexatious nature,”

a bar on further filings is appropriate. Castro v. United

States, 775 F.2d 399, 409 (1st Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (abrogated

on other grounds by Stevens v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 500 U.S. 1

(1991)). 

Case 1:06-cv-00323-SM Document 7 Filed 11/09/06 Page 7 of 9
8

To this end, I have recommended, in a Report and

Recommendation issued this date in Azubuko v. Mass. Lawyers

Weekly, Civ. No. 06-266, that an injunction issue prohibiting

Azubuko from filing further action in this Court without the

prior approval of a judicial officer. This Court is mindful of

the severity of issuing a broad injunction against a pro se

plaintiff. See Castro, 775 F.2d at 410 (“[I]f an injunction

against future litigation were couched in overly broad terms,

this could impermissibly infringe upon a litigator’s right of

access to the courts”); Pavilonis v. King, 626 F.2d 1075, 1079

(1st Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 829 (1980). 

Conclusion

I recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief might be granted. See LR

4.3(d)(1)(B). Any objections to this Report and Recommendation

must be filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. 

Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the

right to appeal the district court’s order. See Unauth’d

Practice of Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir.

Case 1:06-cv-00323-SM Document 7 Filed 11/09/06 Page 8 of 9
9

1992); United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.

1986). 

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 9, 2006

cc: Chukwuma Azubuko, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00323-SM Document 7 Filed 11/09/06 Page 9 of 9