Brodzki v. United States of America

Filing 7

Order of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on May 15, 2012. (jcslc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/15/2012: # 1 Cert Serve) (klhS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANTHONY BRODZKI,
No. C-12-1241 JCS
Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
v.

12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13

Defendant.
_________________________________/

14
15

Plaintiff brought this action in pro se and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

16

Docket No. 5. In that same Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint with leave to amend

17

for failure to state a cognizable claim. Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). On May

18

7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion for judge’s action.” Docket No. 6. The Court

19

construes Plaintiff’s filing as an Amended Complaint.

20

Although the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint includes more facts and an attached medical

21

report (from 2007), the Court nevertheless finds that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint suffers the

22

same defects as the original Complaint. Plaintiff makes vague allegations of torture, harassment,

23

rape and “privacy stealing” involving various police departments and agencies in Chicago, including

24

the FBI. Some of the events of which Plaintiff complains are alleged to have occurred in 1968.

25

Without stating which facts support his claims, Plaintiff asserts that his first, fourth and fifth

26

amendment rights are being violated. As a result of the alleged acts of retaliation, harassment and

27

1

torture undertaken by unspecified people at unspecified times, Plaintiff asks for an emergency

2

injunction “ending this mind and body harassment by the FBI.”

3

Again, as with the original Complaint, construing plaintiff’s allegations liberally, as is

4

required when a plaintiff is proceeding in pro se, see Erikson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), the

5

Court can discern no cognizable claim. The Court therefore DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Amended

6

Complaint WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

7

The Clerk is instructed to close the file.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Date: May 15, 2012

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

__________________________
HON. JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

2