Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Azubuko v. Motor Vehicles, 95 F.3d 1146, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    43 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Chukwu Azubuko appealed the dismissal of his complaint against the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. The court upheld the dismissal, finding that Azubuko's driver's license was suspended with due process after he lost a trial determining his liability for damages from a car accident. The court also rejected Azubuko's claims that the license suspension violated his right to travel or equal protection rights.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1996-09-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 95 F.3d 1146 Docket: 95-2366

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Chukwu Azubuko appealed the dismissal of his complaint against the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. The court upheld the dismissal, finding that Azubuko's driver's license was suspended with due process after he lost a trial determining his liability for damages from a car accident. The court also rejected Azubuko's claims that the license suspension violated his right to travel or equal protection rights.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    43 views2 pages

    Azubuko v. Motor Vehicles, 95 F.3d 1146, 1st Cir. (1996)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Chukwu Azubuko appealed the dismissal of his complaint against the Registrar of Motor Vehicles. The court upheld the dismissal, finding that Azubuko's driver's license was suspended with due process after he lost a trial determining his liability for damages from a car accident. The court also rejected Azubuko's claims that the license suspension violated his right to travel or equal protection rights.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    95 F.

    3d 1146

    NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished


    opinions may be cited only in related cases.
    Chukwu E. AZUBUKO, Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    THE REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant,
    Appellee.
    No. 95-2366.

    United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.


    Sept. 3, 1996.

    Chukwu E. Azubuko on brief pro se.


    Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Beverly R. Roby, Assistant
    Attorney General, on brief for appellee.
    Before SELYA, CYR and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges.

    PER CURIAM
    1

    Appellant Chukwu Azubuko appeals from the dismissal of his complaint


    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(d). We agree with the district court, for the reason
    it gave, that appellant cannot premise a right of action on the criminal statutes
    he cited. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint as to the rest of appellant's
    claims, however, on reasons different than those relied upon by the district
    court.

    Appellant asserts that his driver's license was suspended by the Registrar of
    Motor Vehicles without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    In Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971), the Supreme Court addressed the
    question in what circumstances a hearing is required prior to the suspension of a
    driver's license. Georgia law provided for the suspension of an uninsured
    motorist's driver's license when that driver was involved in an automobile
    accident and could not post security to cover the amount of damages claimed
    by others in the accident report. Although a hearing was conducted prior to the

    suspension, the uninsured motorist could not raise the issue of fault. Thus, such
    a motorist was required to post security or lose his or her license even though he
    or she might not have been responsible for the accident.
    3

    The Court held that once a state granted a driver's license, it could not take it
    away without due process of law. Id. at 539. It then held that since fault was an
    important factor in the decision to suspend a license, due process required a
    predeprivation hearing which considered whether there was a reasonable
    probability of judgments against the driver in the amounts claimed. Id. at 54041.

    In the case before us, appellant's license was suspended after a trial in which
    appellant was found liable for the damages resulting from the automobile
    accident in which he was involved. Thus, unlike Bell--where there was no
    predeprivation hearing regarding liability--appellant received a full, judicial
    adjudication regarding fault before his license was suspended for failing to pay
    the judgment rendered at the trial. Moreover, M.G.L.c. 90, 22A provides for
    another, administrative hearing prior to the actual suspension. The Court of
    Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found constitutional a statutory scheme similar
    22A even though it did not provide for an administrative predeprivation
    hearing. See Tomai-Minogue v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 770 F.2d
    1228, 1230 (4th Cir.1985). Thus, 22A itself appears to provide all that due
    process requires.

    Appellant also claims that the suspension of his license impaired his
    fundamental right to travel and violated the equal protection clause of the
    Fourteenth Amendment. We reject both challenges. See Ross v. Gunaris, 395
    F.Supp. 623, 627-28 (D.Mass.1975) ( 22A does not impede the right to travel
    because it limits only one method of transportation, nor does it deny equal
    protection of the law to those unable to satisfy a property damage judgment).

    For these reasons, appellant's claims, as set forth in both his complaint and
    amended complaint, are based on "indisputably meritless theor[ies]." See
    Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). As a result, the district court
    appropriately dismissed the action.

    The judgment of the district court is affirmed. In so ruling, we decide only the
    appeal from district court case No. 95-CV-10763. No notice of appeal was ever
    docketed in No. 95-CV-11661 and, thus, the later case is not before us.

    You might also like