Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10

Background

Aasir Azzarmi filed this action without a lawyer. His amended complaint alleged that unidentified federal officers violated his constitutional rights and discriminated against him because he is Muslim. He asserted claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and several federal civil-rights statutes. The amended complaint referred to alleged seizures, interference with religious practice, retaliation, denial of access to court, and an alleged statement calling him a “Muslim terrorist.”

In a prior related proceeding, No. 22-CV-5726 (S.D.N.Y.), the court had directed Azzarmi to file a complaint explaining when and where the events occurred, who was involved, and what each defendant did. After Azzarmi did not file an amended complaint or request more time, that action was dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court later allowed Azzarmi to file a new action addressing those deficiencies.

In this action, the court first dismissed Azzarmi’s original complaint but gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court then dismissed his amended complaint because he again did not explain who the defendants were or what they specifically did or failed to do. The court also ordered him to explain why it should not restrict future civil filings without permission, but stated that issue would be addressed separately.

Motion to Reconsider

Azzarmi submitted a letter challenging the dismissal. The court treated the letter as three motions: a motion to alter or amend the judgment 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 final judgment or order under Rule 60(b).

For Rule 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, the court explained that Azzarmi had to show that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that he had not made that showing. It concluded that the dismissal was based on the lack of required factual detail, not on Azzarmi’s inability to identify defendants whose identities or contact information could have been obtained through a court order.

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 provisions of that rule applied. It further found that he had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

Disposition

The court denied Azzarmi’s motion. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The court’s separate consideration of a possible restriction on future filings was not decided in this order.