Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO vs. BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Annotate this Case
Chukwuma E. AZUBUKO vs. BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
SJC-11206.
Oct. 29, 2012.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Mandamus. Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, Commencement of action.
Chukwuma E. Azubuko, pro se.
Michelle K. Hinkley, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for the defendant.
RESCRIPT
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, ยง 5. He specifically requested that the single justice order the Superior Court to issue summonses, which were to be served on the defendants in a case that he commenced in that court in 2010. Azubuko's complaint in that matter, however, was promptly dismissed in the trial court due to his failure to comply with a previous order barring him from commencing any new action without first obtaining the approval of the Regional Administrative Justice. He did not exercise his right to appeal in the ordinary course from the judgment dismissing his complaint. There was no basis for the single justice to grant the relief he sought.
Judgment affirmed.
END OF DOCUMENT
SJC-11206.
Oct. 29, 2012.
Supreme Judicial Court, Superintendence of inferior courts. Mandamus. Practice, Civil, Action in nature of mandamus, Commencement of action.
Chukwuma E. Azubuko, pro se.
Michelle K. Hinkley, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for the defendant.
RESCRIPT
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, ยง 5. He specifically requested that the single justice order the Superior Court to issue summonses, which were to be served on the defendants in a case that he commenced in that court in 2010. Azubuko's complaint in that matter, however, was promptly dismissed in the trial court due to his failure to comply with a previous order barring him from commencing any new action without first obtaining the approval of the Regional Administrative Justice. He did not exercise his right to appeal in the ordinary course from the judgment dismissing his complaint. There was no basis for the single justice to grant the relief he sought.
Judgment affirmed.
END OF DOCUMENT
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
