Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 20, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-03620·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AASIR AZZARMI, Plaintiff, 23-CV-3620 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL DOE OFFICERS 1-10, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that ten unidentified federal officers violated his rights.1 By order dated May 12, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the complaint but grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to replead his claims in an amended complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

1 Because Plaintiff alleges that his rights were violated by federal officers, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s complaint as an action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675 (2009) (“[Bivens] is the federal analog to suits brought against state officials under [§ 1983].”). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in

original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of

action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Plaintiff brings this complaint alleging that Defendants, whom Plaintiff identifies as “Federal officers,” violated his rights “beginning around the end of July 2019 through present.” (ECF No. 2 at 5-6.) Plaintiff alleges that these unidentified officers “acted in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights,” and that “at least one of the Defendants referred to Plaintiff and/or called Plaintiff a ‘Muslim terrorist’ when depriving Plaintiff of his constitutional rights in July 2019.” (Id. at 6.) The complaint does not explain who Defendants might be or what they specifically did to violate Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff seeks money damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, and assistance from the Court, under Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72, 76 (2d Cir. 1997), in identifying Defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff previously filed this identical complaint in this court. See Azzarmi v. Does,

ECF 1:22-CV-5726, 2 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 4, 2022) (“Azzarmi I”). On January 13, 2023, the Court issued an order in Azzarmi I: (1) directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complied with federal pleading rules; and (2) declining to issue a Valentin order until such time that Plaintiff filed a complaint containing sufficient facts to state a claim. Id., ECF 5. Because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint or request an extension of time, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Id., ECF 6. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration in which he professed confusion about his right to file an amended complaint. Id., ECF 7. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, but informed Plaintiff that if he wished to pursue these claims, he could “file a new action in this court that addresses the deficiencies noted in the Court’s January 13, 2023, order to amend.” Id., ECF 8.

Instead of filing a complaint that addressed the deficiencies set forth in the Azzarmi I order to amend, Plaintiff submitted an identical copy of the Azzarmi I complaint. Accordingly, this complaint is deficient for the same reasons set forth in the January 13, 2023, order to amend issued in Azzarmi I, and is dismissed for failure to state a claim. LEAVE TO REPLEAD AND LITIGATION HISTORY Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff has a history of engaging in vexatious litigation, and he has been warned that if

he persists in filing duplicative or frivolous complaints, he will be ordered to show cause why a filing injunction should not be imposed under 28 U.S.C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10 (Azzarmi v. Doe Officers 1-10) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)