Order | Filed: June 30, 2026
Azzarmi v. Neubauer et al
Civil Rights: Other | New York Southern
Order
ORDER re: 201 Memorandum & Opinion,, 205 Response filed by Aasir Azzarmi. On May 15, 2026, in an Order rejecting Plaintiff's objections to certain discovery-related rulings, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions shou ld not issue for the abusive and insulting language Plaintiff directed against Defendants, defense counsel, and the Court in Plaintiff's filings. (See Op. & Order 8-9 (Dkt. No. 201).) Plaintiff's response largely recommits to the rhetoric a nd ad hominem attacks of previous filings, describing Plaintiff as "unrepentant." (See Pl.'s Opp'n to Dkt. No. 201 ("Pl.'s Mem.") (Dkt. No. 205).) Plaintiff's more specific responses are without merit. First, P laintiff's contention that any sanctions would be issued "sua sponte," (Pl.'s Mem. 6), is incorrect because the May 15 Order gave Plaintiff a chance to be heard, (see Op. & Order 9). Second, Plaintiff's contention that the Co urt provided insufficient notice of a particular legal basis for sanctions, (see Pl.'s Mem. 5), is meritless because the Court cited several cases articulating that basis in its Order, (see Op. & Order 8-9), and in its January 6, 2025 Order firs t warning Plaintiff about abusive language in filings, (see Op. & Order 22-23 (Dkt. No. 147)). Third, Plaintiff's arguments as to the First Amendment are unpersuasive, (see, e.g., Pl.'s Mem. 4), because as the Court explained, the First Am endment does not provide a defense for abusive or insulting filings, especially when Plaintiff has previously been warned, (see Op. & Order 9 n.2). See Koehl v. Bernstein, 740 F.3d 860, 863 (2d Cir. 2014) (affirming a district court's "impo sition of the sanction of dismissal with prejudice" of a plaintiff's case where plaintiff repeatedly engaged in "offensive, abusive, and insulting" language in filings similar to these, including with similarly antisemitic commen tary, and had been previously warned by the court that sanctions may issue). As further set forth in this Order, Plaintiff is further warned that if Plaintiff's opposition materials to Defendants' soon-tobe-filed motion for summary judgme nt are stricken because they contain the sort of abusive, insulting, or personal language for which the Court has repeatedly admonished Plaintiff, that may result in the Court treating Defendants' summary judgment motion as unopposed. See, e.g., United States v. Brace, 1 F.4th 137, 139 (3d Cir. 2021) (affirming district court's grant of summary judgment where district court struck the plaintiff's opposition and treated the defendants' motion for summary judgment as unopposed ); Vasudevan v. Admins. of Tulane Educ. Fund, 706 F. App'x 147, 150 n.2 (5th Cir. 2017) (same). Plaintiff is accordingly advised to focus any filings in opposition to the coming motion on the merits of the case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 6/30/2026) (ar)