Azubuko v. First
Case Date: 08/07/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1564
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1564 CHUKWU E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF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- |