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
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. § 1651. See Azzarmi v. Sedgewick Claim Mgmt. Svcs. Inc., ECF 1:22-CV-5868, 5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2023) (listing cases and issuing warning), appeal pending (2d Cir.). Here, Plaintiff resubmitted a complaint that the Court has already deemed deficient, which suggests that Plaintiff did not file it in good faith. In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, and in an abundance of caution, the Court grants him 30 days’ leave to replead his claims in an amended complaint. Plaintiff is on notice, however, that the prior warnings remain in effect. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The Court grants Plaintiff 30 days’ leave to replead his claims in an amended complaint. Plaintiff must submit any amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 23-CV-3620 (LTS). An Amended Complaint form is attached to this order. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within the time allowed, or fails to show cause to excuse such failure, the Court will enter judgment consistent with this order. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: June 20, 2023 New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____CV_______________ (Include case number if one has been Write the full name of each plaintiff. assigned)
AMENDED -against-
COMPLAINT
Do you want a jury trial? ☐ Yes ☐ No
Write the full name of each defendant. If you need more space, please write “see attached” in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section II.
NOTICE The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed with the court should therefore not contain: an individual’s full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual’s birth; a minor’s initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. I. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Generally, only two types of cases can be heard in federal court: cases involving a federal question and cases involving diversity of citizenship of the parties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a case arising under the United States Constitution or federal laws or treaties is a federal question case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, a case in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation, and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000, is a diversity case. In a diversity case, no defendant may be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff. What is the basis for federal-court jurisdiction in your case? ☐ Federal Question ☐ Diversity of Citizenship A. If you checked Federal Question Which of your federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated?
B. If you checked Diversity of Citizenship 1. Citizenship of the parties Of what State is each party a citizen? The plaintiff , , is a citizen of the State of (Plaintiff’s name)
(State in which the person resides and intends to remain.) or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or subject of the foreign state of . If more than one plaintiff is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing information for each additional plaintiff. If the defendant is an individual:
The defendant, , is a citizen of the State of (Defendant’s name)
or, if not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, a citizen or subject of the foreign state of . If the defendant is a corporation: The defendant, , is incorporated under the laws of the State of and has its principal place of business in the State of or is incorporated under the laws of (foreign state) and has its principal place of business in . If more than one defendant is named in the complaint, attach additional pages providing information for each additional defendant.
II. PARTIES A. Plaintiff Information Provide the following information for each plaintiff named in the complaint. Attach additional pages if needed.
First Name Middle Initial Last Name
Street Address
County, City State Zip Code
Telephone Number Email Address (if available) B. Defendant Information To the best of your ability, provide addresses where each defendant may be served. If the correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are the same as those listed in the caption. Attach additional pages if needed. Defendant 1: First Name Last Name
Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 2: First Name Last Name
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 3: First Name Last Name
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code Defendant 4: First Name Last Name
Current Work Address (or other address where defendant may be served)
County, City State Zip Code III. STATEMENT OF CLAIM Place(s) of occurrence:
Date(s) of occurrence: FACTS: State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were harmed, and what each defendant personally did or failed to do that harmed you. Attach additional pages if needed. INJURIES: If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical treatment, if any, you required and received.
IV. RELIEF State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order. V. PLAINTIFF’S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. I agree to notify the Clerk's Office in writing of any changes to my mailing address. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my case. Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application.
Dated Plaintiff’s Signature
Telephone Number Email Address (if available)
I have read the Pro Se (Nonprisoner) Consent to Receive Documents Electronically: ☐ Yes ☐ No If you do consent to receive documents electronically, submit the completed form with your complaint. If you do not consent, please do not attach the form.