Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03620
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Azzarmi v. Doe Officers, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for insufficient facts but allowed Aasir Azzarmi 30 days to amend.
Aasir Azzarmi, who may file an amended complaint within 30 days, and the ten unidentified officers named as defendants. The order also maintains prior warnings concerning potentially restricting Azzarmi’s future filings.
What happened
In Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10, Aasir Azzarmi alleged that ten unidentified federal officers violated his constitutional rights beginning in July 2019, including by calling him a “Muslim terrorist.” He sought money, court declarations and orders, and help identifying the officers.
The court found that the complaint did not explain who the officers were or what each officer specifically did. Because Azzarmi submitted the same complaint that had previously been found insufficient, the court dismissed it for failing to state a claim. The court nevertheless allowed him 30 days to file an amended complaint with enough facts.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also warned that earlier warnings about potentially restricting Azzarmi’s future filings remained in effect. The court denied permission to proceed without paying fees on an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10 · No. 1:23-cv-03620
- Laura Swain
- June 20, 2023
Background
Aasir Azzarmi filed the action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee in advance. He described the defendants as ten unidentified federal officers and alleged that they violated his constitutional rights from around the end of July 2019 through the present. He alleged that the officers acted with reckless disregard for his rights and that at least one officer called him a “Muslim terrorist” while depriving him of those rights.
Although Azzarmi labeled the action as one under the law allowing suits against state officials for constitutional violations, the court treated it as a claim under the federal-law framework for constitutional claims against federal officers. The complaint sought money damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and the court’s assistance in identifying the Doe defendants.
Reason for Dismissal
Because Azzarmi was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks relief from an immune defendant, or presents claims over which the court lacks jurisdiction. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible, not merely possible.
The court found that the complaint did not identify who the defendants might be or describe what each defendant specifically did to violate Azzarmi’s rights. The court therefore concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim. The court noted that Azzarmi had filed an identical complaint in an earlier round of this case, No. 22-CV-5726 (S.D.N.Y.). In that earlier proceeding, the court directed him to file an amended complaint with sufficient facts before it would assist in identifying the defendants. Azzarmi did not amend that complaint, and the court dismissed it. He then filed an identical complaint in this case instead of addressing the stated deficiencies.
Leave to Amend and Other Rulings
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for failure to state a claim. It granted Azzarmi 30 days to file an amended complaint. The amended filing had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and identify docket number 23-CV-3620 (LTS). The order states that if Azzarmi failed to amend within the permitted period, or failed to show cause excusing that failure, the court would enter judgment consistent with the order.
The court also stated that Azzarmi had a history of filing what it characterized as vexatious litigation and had previously been warned that continued duplicative or frivolous filings could lead to a filing injunction. The court said those warnings remained in effect. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the complaint at the pleading-screening stage for failure to state a claim and did not decide whether the alleged constitutional violations actually occurred.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.