Ahmed v. Arizona State University et al

Filing 29

ORDER: Plaintiff's "motion to vacate [judgment]" pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 21 is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this matter in its entirety. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 11/19/2018. (REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Abubakar Hussein Ahmed,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-01626-PHX-MHB

Arizona State University, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pleading entitled, “motion to vacate

16

[judgment]” pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc.

17

21). In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate the order and judgment

18

issued in this case (Docs. 18, 19) claiming that this Court “should explain and

19

expound how exactly rule 8 works and why exactly plaintiff’s complaint doesn’t

20

meet with the standard.” Plaintiff states that the Court dismissed this matter

21

“without providing a notice or chance to be heard,” and “didn’t comply with all

22

the other instructions in the mandate ... .”

23

The Court will recap the procedural background of this case as discussed in

24

this Court’s previous December 19, 2016 dismissal Order, before it addresses

25

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate.

26

On July 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a pro se “Civil Rights Complaint” alleging

27

seven counts for relief against 26 Defendants. In his Complaint, Plaintiff stated the

28

following:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On June 26, 2012, at approximately 2232 hours (10:30 p.m.), it was
allegedly reported that plaintiff had committed an incident of
Forgery Fraud under A.R.S. Section 13-2002Al; later the offense
was changed to one of an attempt to commit forgery. In Arizona, an
attempt to commit forgery is a Class 5 felony.
Oddly enough, the incident was reported at the same time it
occurred. According to the incident summary, plaintiff attempted to
forge an ASU diploma by requesting by e-mail that JFB Desktop
Publishing, a California business entity not registered with the
Secretary of State of California and not registered with the Arizona
Secretary of State, remove the name from a copy of a diploma
plaintiff attached to the email, and put plaintiff’s name there instead.
A charge of Attempted Forgery was pending the result of a search
warrant.
It was alleged that plaintiff, at 2327 hours (11:27 p.m.), on June 26,
2012, received an email from JFB Desktop Publishing stating that
JFB would need to obtain written authorization from ASU before a
diploma could be issued. Plaintiff never received this email on his
computer. Allegedly, JFB Desktop Publishing then notified the
Registrar’s Office at ASU of plaintiff’s alleged request. The
Registrar’s Office at ASU contacted the university's Office of the
General Counsel who in turn contacted the ASU Police.
On July 3, 2012, Jodi Prudhomme, Esq., Associate General Counsel
at ASU, issued a Cease & Desist letter which was allegedly sent to
plaintiff’s email address, which plaintiff never received on his
computer or any other device he owned. Interestingly enough, this
document was not listed among the documents the FBI found during
its analysis of plaintiff’s computers.
Daniel F. Herrmann contacted plaintiff and asked him to come to the
ASU Police Station for an interview. When plaintiff arrived at the
ASU Police Station on July 11, 2012, he was interviewed by FBI
agent John Chipolsky and Daniel Herrmann.
During the July 11th interview, plaintiff denied having knowledge of
JFB Desktop Publishing; plaintiff also denied contacting anyone to
have a diploma made showing that he had graduated from ASU.
When plaintiff was shown the alleged email exchanges between
plaintiff and JFB Desktop Publishing, plaintiff denied involvement
in any way with the alleged forgery.
On July 19, 2012, a search warrant was applied for and granted. The
Affidavit for Search Warrant executed by defendant Daniel F.
Herrmann included an averment that facts concerning Herrmann’s
training and experience established probable cause to issue the
warrant. Herrmann also indicate that he was a Special Deputy United
States Marshal.
The Affidavit for Search Warrant does not cite the same statute as
the ASU Incident Report; the report cites A.R.S. § 13-2002Al while
-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

the Affidavit for Search Warrant cites A.R.S. § 13-2002.A.2 as the
statute that was violated. A.R.S. § 13-2002 A2 provides that a person
commits forgery if, with intent to defraud the person knowingly
possesses a forged instrument. Upon information and belief, plaintiff
was never found to be in possession of a forged instrument.
Furthermore, if he was in possession of the diploma, it was not a
forgery as it contained the name of an actual graduate of ASU.
The Probable Cause Statement portion of the Affidavit avers that
between June 29, 2012 and July 11, 2012, Herrmann learned the
following information. However, the Incident Report indicates that
Herrmann received a report on June 26, 2012 of the alleged incident;
these dates are inconsistent.
Corporal Herrmann indicates in Paragraph 3 of the Probable Cause
Statement that he identified plaintiff through law enforcement
records and conversations with law enforcement investigators as the
user of email address [e-mail].
On May 14, 2014, plaintiff requested a local records check through
the City of Phoenix Code Enforcement Unit of the Phoenix Police
Department; the request included a right index fingerprint. The result
of the request stated “[t]his search is of Phoenix Police Department
records only.” The form also indicates that a search of Phoenix
Police Department computer files disclosed no record meeting
dissemination criteria for the name and date of birth that were
provided.
Clearly, the Phoenix Police Department had no records concerning
the name and date of birth of Abubakar Hussein Ahmed nor an email
address for him.
On April 18, 2014, plaintiff made a Freedom of Information Act
Request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The request required
plaintiff to send fingerprints to the FBI. The result of this request
was a letter indicating “[a] search of the fingerprints provided by
this individual has revealed no prior arrest data at the FBI.”
Therefore, it appears that plaintiff had no record with the FBI.
However, the Maricopa County Arizona County Attorney’s Dispo
Form indicates the 2012 case has FBI No. 280158RD5.
The veracity of Daniel Herrmann’s averment in the Probable Cause
Statement portion of his Affidavit for Search Warrant as to know
how he obtained information regarding plaintiff’s DOB, Social
Security Number and email address is called into question since
neither the Phoenix Police Department nor the FBI had information
regarding an arrest or investigation of plaintiff as of 2014.
Later, in his Complaint, Plaintiff stated:

26
27
28

The officers involved in the raid broke windows, broke a glass
entrance door and shot the door to a room three (3) times. Damage
was done to the residence in the amount of $1573, excluding labor.
-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff was arrested in his home and transported to the Phoenix
Police Department where plaintiff’s fingerprints and a mug shot
were taken. After plaintiff was arrested and taken to a holding
facility, fingerprinted and a mug shot taken, plaintiff returned home.
On information and belief this was a false arrest as the ASU Incident
Report states that no one was taken into custody.
On January 15, 2013, upon information and belief, John Chipolsky
of the FBI contacted the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport
(DFW) TSA while plaintiff was returning home after a trip to Saudi
Arabia for an Islamic religious rite called hajj (pilgrimage to
Makkah), advising them to perform a comprehensive search of
plaintiff. The search at DFW caused plaintiff to miss his flight to
Phoenix.
When plaintiff arrived at Sky Harbor Airport on January 15, 2013,
FBI Agent John Chipolsky and a Phoenix detective met plaintiff.
The two men talked to plaintiff asking him if he listened to Imam
Anwar al Awlaki and other terrorists on Youtube. Chipolsky asked
to see the computer that plaintiff had with him. When plaintiff told
the two men that he couldn’t talk to them without a lawyer being
present, the conversation ended.
Plaintiff asserts on information and belief that the conduct of the
defendants was based on his race, national origin and religion.
When. the FBI visited plaintiff’s home without a search warrant
November 30th 2011, the FBI agents began talking to plaintiff about
his country of origin, when he came to America, when he was
naturalized as a citizen of the United States. The agents also asked
plaintiff whether he was a citizen on paper only or if he was truly
loyal to the U.S. Plaintiff was asked what kind of Islam he practices,
what Islamists,x:lo at their temple. On information and belief this
conduct was engaged in by the FBI agent in violation of plaintiff’s
rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and by
the Phoenix Police Department officers in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Although Corporal Hermarui procured the search warrant on July
19, 2012, he luxuriously waited until the next day, July 20, 2012 to
execute it which would be the first day of Ramadan, the day on
which 1.8 million Muslims around the world start fasting for a
month. The agents/men offered plaintiff water to drink; plaintiff
refused the water on the basis that he can’t drink during the daytime
during Ramadan.
The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s submissions, granted Plaintiff’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court, however, found that
Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to state a specific cause of action against any of the 26
named Defendants, and comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

28
-4-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Procedure. As such, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. In so
doing, the Court advised Plaintiff as to this Court’s duty with respect to the
screening of in forma pauperis cases, and instructed him regarding the federal
pleading requirements as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
federal case law.
On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint. This time,
Plaintiff alleged 62 causes of action against 40 Defendants in his 90-page
document. In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff stated the following:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On June 26, 2012, at approximately 2232 hours (10:30 p.m.), it was
allegedly reported that Plaintiff had committed an incident of Forgery
Fraud under A.R.S. Section 13-2002Al; later the offense was changed to
one of an attempt to commit forgery. In Arizona, an attempt to commit
forgery is a Class 5 felony. Oddly enough the incident was reported at the
same minute it occurred. According to the incident summary, Plaintiff
attempted to forge an ASU diploma by requesting by e-mail that JFB
Desktop Publishing, a California business entity not registered with the
Secretary of State of California and not registered with the Arizona
Secretary of State, remove the name from a copy of a diploma plaintiff
attached to the email, and put Plaintiff's name there instead. A charge of
Attempted Forgery was pending the result of a search/seize warrant.
It was alleged that Plaintiff, at 2327 hours (11 :27 p.m.), on June 26, 2012,
received an email from JFB Desktop Publishing stating that JFB would
need to obtain written authorization from ASU before a diploma could be
issued. Plaintiff never received this email on his computer. Allegedly, JFB
Desktop Publishing then notified the Registrar's Office at ASU of Plaintiff's
alleged request. The Registrar's Office at ASU contacted the University’s
Office of the General Counsel who in turn contacted the ASU Police.
On July 3, 2012, Jodi Prudhomme, Esq., Associate General Counsel at
ASU, issued a Cease & Desist letter which was allegedly sent to Plaintiff’s
email address, which Plaintiff never received on his computer or any other
device he owned. These documents were not listed among the documents
the FBI found during its analysis of Plaintiff’s computers.
Daniel F. Hernnann contacted Plaintiff and asked him to come to the ASU
Police Station for an interview. When Plaintiff arrived at the ASU Police
Station on July 11, 2012, he was interviewed by FBI agent John Chipolsky
and Daniel Hernnann.
During the July 11th interview, Plaintiff denied having knowledge of JFB
Desktop Publishing; Plaintiff also denied contacting anyone to have a
diploma made showing that he had graduated from ASU. When Plaintiff
was shown the alleged email exchanges between Plaintiff and JFB Desktop
Publishing, Plaintiff denied involvement in any way with the alleged
-5-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

forgery.
On July 19, 2012, a search/seize warrant was applied for and granted in the
name of the State of Arizona pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3911 et. Seq. The
Affidavit for Search Warrant executed by Defendant Daniel F. Hernnann
included an averment that facts concerning Hernnann’s training and
experience established probable cause to issue the warrant. Hernnann also
indicated that he was a Special Deputy United States Marshal.
The Affidavit for Search Warrant does not cite the same statute as the ASU
Incident Report; the report cites A.R.S. § 13-2002Al while the Affidavit for
Search Warrant cites A.R.S. § 13-2002.A.2 as the statute that was violated.
A.R.S. § 13-2002 A2 provides that a person commits forgery if, with intent
to defraud the person knowingly possesses a forged instrument. Upon
information and belief, Plaintiff was never found to be in possession of a
forged instrument. Even after the execution of the search warrant.
The Probable Cause Statement portion of the Affidavit avers that between
June 29, 2012 and July 11, 2012, Herrmann learned the following
information. However, in paragraph 7 of the affidavit he averred that On
July 17, 2012 investigators conducted a spot check of the parking of 2419
in phoenix and saw a 2001 Honda, with Arizona license AVR1616,
registered to Abubakar Ahmed and that the investigators also verified that
Abubakar ahmed has internet service in his name at the address.
Further the Incident Report indicates that Herrmann himself reported on
June 26, 2012 of the alleged incident; these dates are inconsistent. Pursuant
to Arizona constitution Article 6 Section 26 before entering office each
Judge takes an oath to support the U.S. constitution. but strangely enough
and in violation of that oath Judge Barbara Hamner decided to approve and
grant a search warrant in the face of an affidavit that contains internal and
external inconsistencies. Besides, the search warrant and it’s affidavit was
oddly officially filed with the court clerk 21 days after its approval and 20
days after execution.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3918 et. Seq. in order to keep the search warrant and
its seizures valid and legal. The search warrant had to be returned to the
judge no more than 3 days after the execution thereof. Therefore
conveniently Judge Colleet Prem signed the date of the search warrant
return to be exactly 3 days after its execution, but oddly enough the filing
date of the search warrant return with the court clerk; Michael K. Jeanes;
appears to be 26 days after the execution date. Pursuant to the inconsistent
dates the truth of Judge Colleet Prem hand written date is suspect.
Moreover the clerk’s website displays a chart which suggests that a search
warrant may be issued, executed, returned, Clerk scans and dockets public
records in as few as two days but no more than 15 days. Additionally,
elsewhere on the clerks website suggests that among the functions and
responsibilities of court clerk is to be the first stop for intiations of Civil,
Criminal etc. Cases, and before the Judge. However the Affadavit, Search
warrant, and the return thereof in question, appears to be vice versa.
EXHIBIT 14
Based on the foregoing information, inference and belief, Plaintiff alleges
the judges engaged in conspiratorial meeting with the officers prior to the
-6-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

application of the search warrant and acted with deliberate indifference as
to whether the affidavit avers factual or fictional statements, defeating the
purpose of A.R.S.13-3914 which requires the judge to examine the
affadavit, Further that explains why Judge Barbara Hamner approved the
Search warrant whose affidavit is repleted with lies, And judge Colleet
Prem Doctored the date to cover up its invalidity pursuant to A.R.S. 133918 et. Seq.
Furthermore, everything seized on July 20th 2012, by the defendants, at the
plaintiff’s home, was no more than things that can be found in every
occupied home, but nevertheless the foregoing Judges found no problem
with the receipt list in spite of the State law pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3919
(B)( 2) which states; Unless the court finds reasonable necessity for the
seizure, the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property. See
Exhibit 1
Moreover, Detective Hermann averred that he gave a detailed receipt for
the property taken, to abubakar ahmed and a supposed roommate DeCarus
Thomas on the contrary the receipt which he turned in to the court shows
the signature spot of the property giver to be blank.
Besides the search warrant commands Detective Dan Hermann to retain the
property in his individual custody or in the custody of Arizona State
University Police Department only, pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3920.
Nevertheless, the property receipt shows that everything seized was seized
by the FBI Agency. This is improper and in violation of the Fourth
Amendment to United States Constitution, the FBI did not have a search
warrant. Ifthe FBI agency had probable cause to Seize property than the
proper course of action would be to apply for a search warrant at the United
States District Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule
41 et. Seq.
Assuming the judge has jurisdiction to inquire into the offense in respect to
which the warrant was issued A.R.S. 13-3923 instructs the judge to either
annex the affidavits, the search warrant and return, and the inventory, and if
he does not have jurisdiction to inquire into the offense in respect to which
the warrant was issued, he shall at once file the warrant, and return the
affidavits and inventory to the court having jurisdiction to inquire into the
offense.
Since neither of the foregoing occurred, this judges should’ve given a bit of
care, by inquiring as to why no charges were brought against the plaintiff
herein or instruct the procurer of the search warrant to return the property to
the plaintiff.
Understandably, the judges have absolute judicial immunity from liability
within their Judicial discretion, but whether is because of the many
breached State Statutes, Taking the clerks function (by becoming the first
stop for an initial criminal proceeding), conspiring with the other
Defendants prior to the application and issuance of the Search Warrant, or
going out of Jurisdiction by approving a search for the Federal Burea
Agency/agents when it was supposed to be a Federal Court/Judge, Plaintiff
claims liability against the judges.

28
-7-

1
2

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint continued, stating:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On September 19, 2014 after making public record request pursuant
to A.R.S. 39-121 et. Seq. Phoenix Police Department, Code
Enforcement Unit released a mugshot that is supposed to be original
on a CD, after careful analysis, plaintiff detected several changes on
the facial area of the plaintiff’s face, this changes were made
specifically to defame the plaintiff, make him look monstrous and
communicate a false idea to a 3rd party that the person in the picture
is a monster. One change that sticks out is the tooth area which
shows only one teeth, even though in reality plaintiff have all his
teeth intact.
On January 15, 2013, upon inference and belief, John Chipolsky of
the FBI contacted the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport
(DFW) TSA while Plaintiff was returning home after a trip to Saudi
Arabia for an Islamic religious rite called Hajj (pilgrimage to
Makk:ah), advising them to perform a comprehensive search of
Plaintiff. The search at DFW caused Plaintiff to miss his flight to
Phoenix.
When Plaintiff arrived at Sky Harbor Airport on January 15, 2013,
FBI Agent John Chipolsky and a Phoenix Sergeant, who was a part
of the swat team on July 20th 2012, met Plaintiff. The two men
talked to Plaintiff asking him if he listened to Imam Anwar al
Awlaki and other terrorists on Youtube. Chipolsky asked to see the
computer that Plaintiff had with him. When Plaintiff told the two
men that he couldn’t talk to them without a lawyer being present, the
conversation ended. At the baggage claim the plaintiff finds one of
his bags was ripped opened.
Plaintiff asserts on information and belief that the conduct of the
Defendants was based on his race, national origin and religion.
When the FBI John Chipolsky and other 10-15 unknown Agents
visited Plaintiff s home without a search warrant on November 30th,
2011, the FBI agents began talking to Plaintiff about his country of
origin, when he came to America, when he was naturalized as a
citizen of the United States. The agents also asked Plaintiff, whether
he was a citizen on paper only or if he was truly loyal to the U.S.
Plaintiff was asked what kind of Islam he practices, what Islamists
do at their temple. On information and belief, this conduct was
engaged in by the FBI agent in violation of Plaintiff s rights under
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Besides, as some agents were engaged in the biasely and racially
motivated interrogative harassment, the other agents were going
throughout the home, taking notes.
On information and belief the The foregoing behavior of the FBI
Agents was due to the improper training they received in Quantico,
VA, with the controversial anti-Islam material which were
-8-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

purportedly removed on or around January, 15th 2012 due to a
whistle blower agent that triggered Human rights Groups, media and
congress pressure. When asked, by Senator Al Franken on December
14th 2011, has the FBI Issued a clear and unequivocal apology to the
Muslim American community for the bigoted and anti-Muslim
statements found in those material?, former Director Robert Mueller
then Director of the FBI Stated not only we apologized to the
Muslim community we also explained to them, the process we’re
undergoing to address the issue. However mere apology is not
enough in this case due to the fact that the anti islam doctrine caused
Plaintiff injuries that cannot be remedied unless equity and law is
justly applied to the fullest extent.
Further plaintiff alleges, Mr. Muealler retreated his agents from
harassing plaintiff and other muslims lacking any reason, to
attacking plaintiff and possibly other muslims with falsified reasons.
As contrasted herein.
According to USA Today (See Exhibit 11)
The FBI has pulled more than 700 documents and 300 presentations
that stereotyped Islam or were factually inaccurate.
Among the anti islam documents is a chart which depicts to Muslims
as people who start out their lives violent and adhere to violence as
their devotion increases. But Christians and Jews lower their violent
behavior as their devotion increases. See Exhibit 12
Although Defendants procured the search warrant on July 19, 2012,
they luxuriously waited until the next day, July 20, 2012 to execute
it which would be the first day of Ramadan, the day on which 1.8
billion Muslims around the world start fasting for a month. The
agents/men offered Plaintiff water to drink; Plaintiff refused the
water on the basis that he can’t drink during the daytime for the
duration of Ramadan. See Exhibit 13
Besides even though defendants had a period of more than 15 hours
to serve the search warrant on any day, they chose just the time
which plaintiff attends a weekly 1 hour Islamic sermon at the local
Mosque.
On inference and belief, the foregoing was a purposeful act to
impede plaintiff from an activity protected by the first Amendment
to the United States Constitution.
On August, 24 2012, Defendants submitted a Falsified charge of
forgery felony to the Maricopa County Attorney against this
plaintiff; Stating that a forgery crime took place on August, 1st 2012
contradicting the falsified ASU Police incident report, which states
the crime was committed on June 26th 2012; the County Attorney
did not file any charges against the Plaintiff herein. Later on,
Defendants ferociously, submitted a 2nd blatantly false Charge to
the prosecutor; claiming that Plaintiff herein committed a forgery
felony on December, 28 2012 even though plaintiff was not in the
-9-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

United States on that day. See Exhibit 5
The defendants submitted a CD containing web browsing history, as
evidence, and alleged that the plaintiff searched for a fake diploma
online. But the plaintiff could not have been the one browsing for
fake diploma on August 1st 2012 or December 28th 2012.
especially, provided that the plaintiff didn't have the computer in his
possession on those dates. The computer was seized by the
defendants on july 20th 2012 and was never returned to plaintiff to
date. ...
Plaintiff asserts, if defendants had probable cause than there would
be a definite prosecution against the plaintiff, but since probable
cause existed neither before nor after the procurement and execution
of the search warrant. The Defendants were trying to exculpate
themselves from the foregoing Statutory law by any means possible.
And even if its to charge the plaintiff through fraudulent means
which they unsuccessfully exhausted.
Though nevertheless, defendants treated themselves with
candonation since they are the gate keepers of criminal charges.
After the Defendants engaged in the conduct described herein, the
Maricopa County Attorney declined to prosecute and no charges
were officially filed against Plaintiff Prosecutor James E Blair Jr,
instructed defendants to release all property as to this Plaintiff than
defendant. The Plaintiff s computer and other illegally confiscated
properties is still purportedly in the custody of the FBI in defiance of
the County Attorney’s instruction.
Again, instructing Plaintiff as to this Court’s duty with respect to the
screening of in forma pauperis cases, as well as, the pleading requirements set
forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and federal case law, the Court
found, “that once again, [Plaintiff’s complaint] fails to satisfy the federal pleading
requirements.” The Court stated that the complaint failed to provide a “short and
plain statement” of his claims. The Court found that the pleading contained a
narrative account of incidents purportedly underlying this action, large portions of
which are meandering and irrelevant.

The Court stated that the Amended

Complaint failed to provide sufficient notice to Defendants of how each individual
Defendant allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights.
For example, Plaintiff stated under “Count 1,” “Plaintiff repeats and realleges and incorporates the allegations in each and every paragraph contained

28
- 10 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

herein as if copied in extenso, with the same force and effect against each and
every Defendant herein, for direct and/or indirect participation and/or action
and/or inaction and/or encouragement and/or condonation and/or acquiescence
and/or negligence and/or gross negligence of the violation in this count. Further,
Plaintiff alleges that his rights, privileges or immunities under 42 U.S.C. § 2000d
et. Seq. were violated due to his race, skin color, religion and national origin.
Plaintiff was deprived of the law enforcement services, after the conduct described
herein, Defendants treated each other with a total condonations. No one was
charged pursuant to A.R.S. 13-3924. ... Therefore Plaintiff claims liability against
each and every state Divisions/Departments whose employee was involved,
further Plaintiff claims liability against the same Divisions/Departments for the
actions of the federal employees, because the federal employees went out of their
Jurisdictions and duties by oddly pretexting that they are enforcing state laws, but
nevertheless state actors didn’t reject the support of the federal employees, they
instead encouraged, acquiesced and even conspired together to deprive Plai ntiff
rights protected

under laws and constitution

under false pretenses. Further

Plaintiff doesn't waive his rights and liability against the federal agents pursuant to
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971). In their individual capacity.” Plaintiff continued to address each
of his 62 causes of action in this same fashion.
Thus, after having (1) screened Plaintiff’s original Complaint and including
a description of the federal pleading requirements coupled with this Court’s duty
with respect to the screening of in forma pauperis cases, (2) allowed Plaintiff the
opportunity to file an Amended Complaint, (3) screened the Amended Complaint
and, again, instructing Plaintiff as to this Court’s duty with respect to the screening
of in forma pauperis cases, as well as, the pleading requirements set forth in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and federal case law, and (4) found that Plaintiff

28
- 11 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

failed to satisfy the federal pleading requirements, failed to provide sufficient
notice to Defendants of how each individual Defendant allegedly violated
Plaintiff’s rights, and failed to provide any plausible claim for relief, the Court
dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety implicitly finding that it had
given Plaintiff adequate opportunity to state a claim and comply with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and that the allegations Plaintiff asserted cannot be cured
by amendment.
Plaintiff subsequently appealed this Court’s Order. The Ninth Circuit,
thereafter, remanded this matter back to this Court “to give Ahmed notice of the
deficiencies in his claims and an opportunity to file an amended complaint.” The
Ninth Circuit stated that, “[t]he district court properly found that Ahmed’s First
Amended Complaint violated Rule 8(a)’s requirement that a pleading shall contain
‘a short and plain statement’ of the case. However, the district court did not
consider less drastic alternatives before dismissing Ahmed’s action.”
On December 19, 2016, the Court found that having documented the
history of this matter, demonstrating that neither of Plaintiff’s complaints could
possibly be construed as: (1) complying with the federal pleading requirements
which were explicitly outlined in the Court’s previous two screening orders, and
(2) stating a claim for relief against any of the specifically-named Defendants –
and in accordance with the Mandate of the Ninth Circuit, ordered that “Plaintiff
shall have thirty days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice
and without further notice to Plaintiff if Plaintiff fails to file an amended
complaint within thirty days of the date of this Order.”
Plaintiff failed to file an amended pleading pursuant to this Court’s Order
and, on January 20, 2017, the Clerk of Court entered Judgment. Over two months
later, on March 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to vacate (Doc. 21).

28
- 12 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a movant may seek relief
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Thus, clauses (1) through (5) provide specific reasons
for granting relief, while clause (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying
relief are extraordinary; mere dissatisfaction with the court’s order or belief that
the court is wrong in its decision are not adequate grounds for relief. See
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.
1981).
Again, in his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court vacate the order and
judgment issued in this case (Docs. 18, 19) claiming that this Court “should
explain and expound how exactly rule 8 works and why exactly plaintiff’s
complaint doesn’t meet with the standard.”
As the procedural history of this case demonstrates, this Court has (1)
screened Plaintiff’s original Complaint and including a description of the federal
pleading requirements coupled with this Court’s duty with respect to the screening
of in forma pauperis cases, (2) allowed Plaintiff the opportunity to file an
Amended Complaint, (3) screened the Amended Complaint and, again, instructing
Plaintiff as to this Court’s duty with respect to the screening of in forma pauperis
cases, as well as, the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and federal case law, and (4) found that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the

28
- 13 -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

federal pleading requirements, failed to provide sufficient notice to Defendants of
how each individual Defendant allegedly violated Plaintiff’s rights, and failed to
provide any plausible claim for relief. Even after this, the Court has given Plaintiff
an additional thirty days to file another amended complaint. Plaintiff, however,
failed to comply.
Plaintiff is no different than any other pro se litigant and he has been
properly advised of the necessary filing requirements in this case. He has been
given opportunities to comply, and has failed to do so. The Court finds that none
of the factors identified in Rule 60(b) are present here. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
“motion to vacate [judgment]” pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (Doc. 21) will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s “motion to vacate [judgment]”
pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 21);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing this matter in its entirety.
Dated this 19th day of November, 2018.

16
17
18

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee
Senior United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 14 -