Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10

Background

AASIR AZZARMI, who was representing himself and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, filed an amended complaint against the Federal Government and six named individuals. The complaint alleged that federal officers violated his rights beginning in or around late July 2019 and continuing through later years. He alleged that the defendants targeted him because he practices Islam, unlawfully seized him without a warrant or reasonable cause, interfered with his religious practice, speech, right to petition the government, and access to court, and called him a “Muslim terrorist.”

He asserted claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981–1987, as well as several constitutional provisions. He sought $1 million in damages and unspecified declaratory and injunctive relief. The opinion states that it was unclear who the individual defendants were.

The court had previously directed AASIR AZZARMI to correct deficiencies in the complaint. In an earlier related proceeding, the court dismissed a similar complaint after he did not file an adequate amended complaint. In this action, the court first dismissed the original complaint with 30 days to replead, explaining that it did not identify the defendants or describe what they specifically did. AASIR AZZARMI then filed the amended complaint.

Dismissal

The court dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It found that the amended complaint remained deficient for the same reasons identified in the earlier orders: AASIR AZZARMI did not explain who the individual defendants were or what each one specifically did or failed to do that violated his federally protected rights.

The court explained that a self-represented plaintiff is generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but further amendment may be denied when earlier opportunities have not corrected the problems. The court found that AASIR AZZARMI had received three opportunities to file a sufficient pleading between the earlier proceeding and this case, and it declined to grant another opportunity. The court did not decide whether the alleged seizures, religious discrimination, retaliation, or other alleged rights violations actually occurred.

Order to show cause and appeal status

The court ordered AASIR AZZARMI to submit, within 30 days, a declaration explaining why he should not be barred from filing future actions in that court without paying filing fees unless he first obtains permission. The court stated that if he did not submit the declaration, or if it did not show good cause, the filing restriction would be imposed. The order therefore required a response before any such restriction could take effect.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal from this order. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.