Court Opinion

ID: 2964194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:57.234345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:52.237934
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1564

                                  CHUKWU E. AZUBUKO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON,
                              THEIR BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                  [Hon. George A. O'Toole, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Chukwu E. Azubuko on Reply to Motion for Summary Disposition.
            _________________
            Robert L. Klivans on Motion for Summary Disposition for appellee.
            _________________

                                 ____________________

                                    August 7, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Appellant  Chukwu E.  Azubuko appeals
                      __________

            from  the district court's dismissal of his complaint against

            appellee First  National Bank of Boston.   Appellee has moved

            for summary disposition of the  matter under Local Rule 27.1,

            arguing  that the  appeal does  not  present any  substantial

            questions.  We agree.

                      1.  Subject Matter Jurisdiction.  Appellant appears
                          ___________________________

            to  confuse  personal  jurisdiction  over  a  defendant  with
                         ________

            subject matter jurisdiction over a cause of action.  Only the
            ______________

            latter type of  jurisdiction is in question in this case.  In

            this context,  then, we  first note  that appellant's  claims

            plainly  do not  "aris[e] under  the  Constitution, laws,  or

            treaties  of the  United  States."   See  28  U.S.C.    1331.
                                                 ___

            Rather, he is asserting state law claims.   Under 28 U.S.C.  

            1332(a),  the  district  court  has  jurisdiction  over  such

            actions  where  the  controversy  is   between  "citizens  of

            different States."  Appellant does not dispute that defendant

            is a citizen of Massachusetts.

                      For  individuals,   citizenship  is   equated  with

            "domicile."   See Rodriguez-Diaz v. Sierra-Martinez, 853 F.2d
                          ___ ______________    _______________

            1027, 1029  (1st Cir. 1988).   Domicile, in turn,  requires a

            home and physical presence in a state.  Id.  Appellant states
                                                    ___

            that he  is a  resident of Massachusetts;  he does  not claim

            citizenship in any other jurisdiction.   Thus, he is deemed a

            citizen  of  the  Commonwealth.    See  id.    As  such,  the
                                               ___  ___

                                         -2-

            controversy  is between  citizens  of  the  same  state  and,
                                                        ____

            diversity missing, the  district court lacked subject  matter

            jurisdiction over the action.

                      2.  Review of State Court Judgments.
                          _______________________________

                      Appellant plainly  is  attacking  the  state  court

            judgment  against  him on  the  same  claim  that he  is  now

            asserting.    The  Rooker-Feldman  doctrine  prohibits  lower
                               ______________

            federal courts such  as the district court and  this one from

            reviewing  state court  judgments.   See  Rooker v.  Fidelity
                                                 ___  ______     ________

            Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of
            _________                       _____________________________

            Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).  Even if appellant's
            _______    _______

            federal claims never were presented in state court, they  are

            "inextricably  intertwined"   with  that   judgment,  thereby

            barring review by this or the district court.   See Ritter v.
                                                            ___ ______

            Ross, 992 F.2d  750, 753-54 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Feldman,
            ____                                                 _______

            460 U.S.  at 483  n.16) (internal  quotation marks  omitted),

            cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1046 (1994).
            ____________

                      3.  Notice.  The district  court in its endorsement
                          ______

            granting  appellee's motion to dismiss gave three reasons for

            its  actions.   Although succinct,  we think  that they  were

            sufficient.   Given the  basic  flaws in  the complaint,  and

            defendant's   memorandum  explaining   the   nature  of   the

            jurisdictional flaw, appellant was adequately apprised of the

            reasons for the dismissal.

                                         -3-

                      We therefore  summarily affirm the judgment  of the
                                              ______

            district court.   See Local R. 27.1.   Appellant's motions to
                              ___

            proceed in forma  pauperis and without  briefs are denied  as
                                                               ______

            moot.

                                         -4-