Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10

Background

Aasir Azzarmi filed this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that ten unidentified federal officers violated his rights. Because the defendants were alleged to be federal officers, the court interpreted the complaint as potentially asserting a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which provides a possible federal counterpart to certain civil-rights suits against state officials. Azzarmi alleged that the violations began around the end of July 2019 and continued through the present. He alleged that at least one defendant called him a “Muslim terrorist” while depriving him of his constitutional rights. He requested monetary, punitive, emotional, declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, and asked the court to help identify the defendants.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Azzarmi had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a qualifying complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court explained that self-represented pleadings are read generously, but they still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible. The court found that Azzarmi’s complaint did not identify the federal agency employing the officers, explain what each defendant allegedly did or failed to do, or identify where the events occurred. The court therefore treated the allegations that his constitutional rights were violated as conclusions unsupported by enough facts to determine whether he was entitled to relief.

Order

The court concluded that Azzarmi had not stated a claim for relief and declined, at that time, to issue an order under Valentin v. Dinkins to assist in identifying the Doe defendants. The court nevertheless granted Azzarmi leave to amend because he might be able to state a valid claim with additional facts.

Azzarmi was given 60 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint. The court directed him to explain where the events occurred, identify the federal agency involved if possible, and describe what each defendant did or failed to do. The amended complaint must name the defendants in both the caption and the statement of claim when possible; unidentified defendants may be called “John Doe” or “Jane Doe.” The court stated that using Doe names would not stop the three-year limitations period from running and that Azzarmi would be responsible for identifying the defendants before that period expired. The amended complaint also must include the relevant people, events, approximate dates and times, locations, injuries, and requested relief. It will replace rather than supplement the original complaint.

The court granted leave to file an amended complaint, declined at that time to issue the identification order, and stated that no summons would issue at that time. It warned that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.