Brodzki v. United States Of America

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/9/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 Northern District of California 4 5 ANTHONY BRODZKI, 6 Plaintiff, No. C 12-02625 MEJ ORDER DISMISSING CASE v. 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8 9 Defendant. _____________________________________/ On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff Anthony Brodzki filed a complaint and an application to proceed 10 in forma pauperis (“ifp”). Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States magistrate 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. No. 5. On June 4, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s 13 application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 6. Since that time, however, it has become 14 increasingly clear that this case should be dismissed sua sponte as frivolous and for failure to state a 15 claim. 16 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss a case when it is frivolous or 17 “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the 18 Court must construe the complaint liberally. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 19 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Nonetheless, the complaint must be sufficient to place defendants on 20 notice of the nature of the claims asserted against them. McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th 21 Cir. 1991). 22 Here, upon reassessment, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim and 23 is frivolous. In it, Plaintiff alleges that he “was attemptedly [sic] sodomized by henry pomocnik, in 24 Illinois,” that he was “tortured, sodemized [sic] and raped” by his stepfamily,” and that he was 25 “gang raped” by United States law enforcement. Compl., Dkt. No. 1. In addition to his Complaint, 26 Plaintiff has also filed a “Motion for an injunction,” in which he requests the Court issue a 27 temporary restraining order “instructing the United States government from harassing me with 28 electronic vigor,” and refers to being tasered as a child. Dkt. No. 8. Since the Court granted his ifp 1 application, Plaintiff has also repeatedly called both the Court’s courtroom deputy and chambers, 2 sometimes during business hours but mostly late at night, and left messages in which he makes 3 statements that appear to relate to his Complaint, such as “the government is treating me like a 4 husband would abuse a spouse,” “the FBI has been overzealous and has been having illegal 5 intercourse with me,” “they are federally tasering me,” “my phony family was part of the rape,” “the 6 United States gang raped and tortured me for two years and used disorientation equipment,” “I have 7 a goofball brother that engaged these people in recreational sex,” and “they actually took a razor to 8 my leg when I was a youth, and this is true, and he was going to cut me a female anatomy - this is 9 how bad the feds were.” Based on Plaintiff’s filings and voicemail messages, it is clear that this 10 case should be dismissed. Moreover, this case in one of dozens of similar cases that Plaintiff has filed. In an order 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 issued on January 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in this District noted that “Brodzki 13 appears to have filed no less than 63 complaints since 2009 in district courts across the country, 14 many of which allege identical or similar claims to those asserted here.” See Brodzki v. United 15 States, No. 11-5299, 2012 WL 253236, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012). Judge Lloyd noted that 16 “[d]istrict courts across the country have dismissed cases filed by Mr. Brodzki on facts quite like 17 those before this court, and many of those courts found Brodzki’s actions to be frivolous.” Id. The 18 court concluded that Plaintiff’s action was frivolous, and dismissed it with prejudice. Id.; see also 19 Brodzki v. United States, No. 11-878, 2012 WL 527364, at *1 (D. Or. Feb. 16, 2012) (granting 20 application for in forma pauperis but dismissing this Plaintiff’s case with prejudice). The Court 21 adopts Judge Lloyd’s reasoning in full. 22 23 24 Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s pending motion for reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: July 9, 2012 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 2 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ANTHONY BRODZKI, 5 No. C 12-02625 MEJ Plaintiff(s), 6 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 8 Defendant(s). / 9 10 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 That on July 9, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 14 15 Anthony Brodzki 6900 Herman Jared Drive North Richland Hill, TX 76182 16 17 18 Dated: July 9, 2012 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Rose Maher, Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?