USCA1 Opinion

September 3, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 95-2366

CHUKWU E. AZUBUKO,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

THE REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Chukwu E. Azubuko on brief pro se.

_________________
Scott
Harshbarger,
___________________

Attorney

General,

and

Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

Beverly R. Ro
_______________

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
__________

the

dismissal

1915(d).

of

Appellant Chukwu

his complaint

Azubuko appeals from

pursuant

to

28 U.S.C.

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.

complaint as to

reasons

We affirm the dismissal

the rest of appellant's

different than

those

of the

claims, however, on

relied upon

by the

district

court.

Appellant asserts

suspended

by the

Registrar

that

his driver's

of Motor

license

was

Vehicles without

due

process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Burson,
______

In Bell v.
____

402 U.S. 535 (1971), the Supreme Court addressed the

question in what circumstances a hearing is required prior to

the suspension

for

the

license

of a driver's license.

suspension

when

that

of

an

driver

uninsured

was involved

Georgia law provided

motorist's

in

an

driver's

automobile

accident and could not

post security to cover the

damages claimed by others in the accident report.

hearing was conducted prior

motorist could not raise

motorist was required

amount of

Although a

to the suspension, the uninsured

the issue of fault.

to post

Thus, such

security or lose

his or

her

license even though he or she might not have been responsible

for the accident.

The Court held that once a state granted a driver's

license, it could

law.

Id. at
___

539.

not take

It then

it away without

held that since

-3-

due process

of

fault was

an

important factor in

the decision to

process

required a

predeprivation hearing

whether

there

was

reasonable

suspend a license,

In

suspended

for

the

case

before us,

after a trial in which

the damages

resulting from

which he was involved.

which considered

probability

against the driver in the amounts claimed.

due

of judgments

Id. at 540-41.
___

appellant's

license was

appellant was found liable

the automobile

accident in

Thus, unlike Bell -- where there was

____

no
__

predeprivation hearing

regarding liability

-- appellant

received a full, judicial adjudication regarding fault before

______

his license

was suspended

rendered at the trial.

for

another,

suspension.

found

though

for failing to

Moreover, M.G.L.c. 90,

administrative

The

pay the

Court of

hearing prior

Appeals for

22A provides

to

the

the Fourth

constitutional a statutory scheme similar

it

did

not
___

predeprivation hearing.

provide

for

judgment

an

actual

Circuit

22A

even

administrative

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.

reject

both

challenges.

623, 627-28 (D.Mass. 1975)

to

travel

because

it

See Ross v.
___ ____

Gunaris, 395 F.Supp.

_______

22A does not impede

limits

-4-

only

We

one

the right

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

"indisputably

meritless

Williams,
________

U.S.

490

complaint, are

theor[ies]."

319, 327

(1989).

See
___

As

based on

Neitzke
_______

a result,

v.

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.

-5-