Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10

Background

AASIR AZZARMI filed this action without a lawyer against DOE OFFICERS 1-10. On January 13, 2023, the court denied without prejudice his request for help identifying the officers because the complaint did not provide enough facts to determine whether he was entitled to relief. The court nevertheless gave him 60 days to amend the complaint. The court directed him to describe where the events occurred, identify the federal agency employing the officers if he could, and explain what each defendant did or failed to do that violated his rights.

Azzarmi did not file an amended complaint or communicate with the court. On March 29, 2023, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. On April 13, 2023, Azzarmi filed a motion challenging that dismissal. The court treated the filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

Reasons for the Ruling

Azzarmi argued that a warning issued in an earlier related proceeding—stating that future duplicative or frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on new filings—caused him to believe that his opportunity to amend this complaint had been revoked. The court held that the warning did not apply because this action had already been filed before the warning was issued. The court also found that the docket contained nothing supporting Azzarmi’s belief and did not show that he had asked the court for clarification.

For Rule 59(e), the court explained that Azzarmi had to show that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court concluded that he had not made that showing and denied the Rule 59(e) motion. The court applied the same standard under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and denied that motion for the same reason.

The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b). It found that Azzarmi had not shown that any of the grounds in the first five parts of that rule applied. To the extent he relied on Rule 60(b)(6), which allows relief for another reason in extraordinary circumstances, the court found that he had not shown extraordinary circumstances.

Disposition and Effect

The court denied Azzarmi’s motion for reconsideration. The action is closed. The Clerk of Court will accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the court warned that filing additional frivolous or meritless documents could lead to an order requiring Azzarmi to show cause why further filings in this action should not be barred.

The court stated that Azzarmi may file a new action addressing the deficiencies identified in the January 13 order. It said that a new action must include the required filing fee or a completed and signed request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court also kept in effect the earlier warning about possible restrictions on new actions. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.