Azubuko v. Motor Vehicles ( 1996 )

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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   Beverly  R.  Roby,
___________________                             _________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________











                      Per Curiam.  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.



                      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
___







                                         -3-



























            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 540-41.
___



                      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







                                         -4-



























            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.































































                                         -5-