Azubuko v. City of BostonAnnotate this Case
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Chukwuma Azubuko for failure to pay rent. Azubuko, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against the Commonwealth, two cities, and a town, asserting various constitutional, statutory, and common-law claims and contending that these governmental entities were liable for paying his rent. A district court judge dismissed the third-party claims and later dismissed the underlying complaint when Plaintiff and Azubuko failed to appear. Azubuko subsequently sought mandamus relief. A single justice of the Supreme Court denied Azubuko's request. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the single justice correctly denied the request for mandamus relief, as Azubuko had another remedy, namely, an appeal from the final judgment of the trial court dismissing his third-party complaint.
Dec. 21, 2012.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts, Appeal from order of single justice. Mandamus. Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus.
Chukwuma E. Azubuko, pro se.
Chukwuma E. Azubuko appeals from the denial, by a single justice of this court, of his request for relief in the nature of mandamus under G.L. c. 249, § 5. We affirm.
Azubuko was the defendant in an underlying civil action in the District Court Department. The plaintiff in that case, Richard A. Savage, filed a complaint against him for failure to pay rent. Azubuko, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against the Commonwealth the city of Boston, the town of Brookline, and the city of Everett, asserting various constitutional, statutory and common-law claims. He claimed that these governmental entities were somehow liable for paying his rent. A judge in the District Court Department dismissed the third-party claims and then subsequently dismissed the underlying complaint when both Savage and Azubuko failed to appear. Azubuko then sought relief from the single justice.
"[R]elief in the nature of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy which will be granted only when there exists no other adequate and effective remedy." Simmons v. Clerk-Magistrate of the Boston Div. of the Housing Court Dept., 448 Mass. 57, 60 (2006), quoting L.G.G. v. Department of Social Servs., 429 Mass. 1008, 1008 (1999). Azubuko was not entitled to relief in the nature of mandamus because he had another adequate and effective remedy, namely, an appeal from the final judgment of the trial court dismissing his third-party complaint. For this reason, among others, the single justice correctly denied the request for mandamus relief. [FN2]
FN1. Richard A. Savage; the town of Brookline; the city of Everett; and the Commonwealth.
FN2. This is the second case we decide today in which Azubuko appeals from a decision of a single justice of this court. As we noted in Azubuko v. Registry of Motor Vehicles, 463 Mass. 1010, 1010 n. 2 (2012), there is an outstanding order of this court that restricts Azubuko's future filings.
END OF DOCUMENT