Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    Azubuko v. First, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint against a bank for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. The plaintiff, a citizen of Massachusetts like the bank defendant, was attempting to attack a state court judgment against him in federal court, which is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 3. Additionally, the district court provided sufficient notice and reasons for dismissing the complaint in its brief endorsement, given the clear jurisdictional flaws present.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Azubuko v. First, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    19 views11 pages
    1. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint against a bank for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. The plaintiff, a citizen of Massachusetts like the bank defendant, was attempting to attack a state court judgment against him in federal court, which is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 3. Additionally, the district court provided sufficient notice and reasons for dismissing the complaint in its brief endorsement, given the clear jurisdictional flaws present.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-08-07 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 96-1564

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint against a bank for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. The plaintiff, a citizen of Massachusetts like the bank defendant, was attempting to attack a state court judgment against him in federal court, which is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 3. Additionally, the district court provided sufficient notice and reasons for dismissing the complaint in its brief endorsement, given the clear jurisdictional flaws present.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    19 views11 pages

    Azubuko v. First, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirms the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint against a bank for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. The plaintiff, a citizen of Massachusetts like the bank defendant, was attempting to attack a state court judgment against him in federal court, which is prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 3. Additionally, the district court provided sufficient notice and reasons for dismissing the complaint in its brief endorsement, given the clear jurisdictional flaws present.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 11

    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 appelle


    _________________

    ____________________

    August 7, 1996
    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    __________

    from

    Appellant

    Chukwu E.

    Azubuko appeals

    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

    not

    that the

    questions.

    present any

    substantial

    We agree.

    1.

    to

    appeal does

    confuse

    Subject Matter Jurisdiction.


    ___________________________

    personal
    ________

    jurisdiction

    over

    Appellant appears

    defendant

    subject matter jurisdiction over a cause of action.


    ______________

    latter type of

    this context,

    plainly

    treaties

    with

    Only the

    jurisdiction is in question in this case.

    then, we

    do not

    of the

    first note

    "aris[e] under

    United

    the

    States."

    that appellant's

    claims

    Constitution, laws,

    See
    ___

    Rather, he is asserting state law claims.

    28

    U.S.C.

    In

    or

    1331.

    Under 28 U.S.C.

    1332(a),

    the

    district

    actions

    where

    the

    different States."

    court

    has

    controversy

    jurisdiction

    is

    between

    over

    "citizens

    such

    of

    Appellant does not dispute that defendant

    is a citizen of Massachusetts.

    For

    "domicile."

    1027, 1029

    individuals,

    citizenship

    (1st Cir. 1988).

    Domicile, in turn,

    is a

    of

    Id.
    ___

    resident of Massachusetts;

    citizenship in any other jurisdiction.

    citizen

    equated

    with

    See Rodriguez-Diaz v. Sierra-Martinez, 853 F.2d


    ___ ______________
    _______________

    home and physical presence in a state.

    that he

    is

    the

    Commonwealth.

    -2-

    See
    ___

    requires a

    Appellant states

    he does

    not claim

    Thus, he is deemed a

    id.
    ___

    As

    such,

    the

    controversy

    is between

    diversity missing, the

    citizens

    of

    the

    same
    ____

    state

    district court lacked subject

    and,

    matter

    jurisdiction over the action.

    2.

    Review of State Court Judgments.


    _______________________________

    Appellant plainly

    judgment

    asserting.

    against

    The

    him on

    is

    the

    attacking

    same

    Rooker-Feldman

    claim

    doctrine

    the

    state

    that he

    prohibits

    court

    is

    now

    lower

    ______________

    federal courts such

    reviewing

    as the district court and

    state court

    judgments.

    See
    ___

    this one from

    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

    "inextricably

    intertwined"

    with

    that

    judgment,

    barring review by this or the district court.

    Ross, 992 F.2d


    ____

    460 U.S.

    are

    thereby

    See Ritter v.
    ___ ______

    750, 753-54 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Feldman,


    _______

    at 483

    n.16) (internal

    quotation marks

    omitted),

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


    ____________

    3.

    Notice.
    ______

    The district

    court in its endorsement

    granting

    its

    appellee's motion to dismiss gave three reasons for

    actions.

    Although succinct,

    sufficient.

    Given the

    defendant's

    memorandum

    basic

    we think

    flaws in

    explaining

    the

    that they

    the complaint,

    nature

    of

    were

    and

    the

    jurisdictional flaw, appellant was adequately apprised of the

    reasons for the dismissal.

    -3-

    We therefore

    summarily affirm the judgment


    ______

    district court.

    See Local R. 27.1.


    ___

    proceed in forma

    pauperis and without

    moot.

    of the

    Appellant's motions to

    briefs are denied


    ______

    as

    -4-

    You might also like