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)
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?