Brodzki v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING 9 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE AND DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS 8 15 16 20 . The January 31, 2011 hearing is VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 1/26/2012. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2012)

1

** E-filed January 26, 2012 **

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

ANTHONY BRODZKI,
Plaintiff,

12
v.
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

No. C11-05299 HRL
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DENYING ALL OTHER PENDING
MOTIONS

14
15

Defendant.
____________________________________/

16

[Re: Docket Nos. 8, 9, 15, 16, 20]

On October 31, 2011, Anthony Brodzki filed in forma pauperis a civil complaint against the

17

United States of America (“United States” or “government”), seeking $500 million in damages for

18

alleged harassment and privacy violations. 1 Dkt. No. 1. (“Complaint”). According to the complaint,

19

the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the government’s use of “communications equipment”

20

capable of causing “tort[s]” to plaintiff’s “seclusion and privacy.” Id.

21

This court granted plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 4. Plaintiff then

22

filed a motion to appoint counsel. Dkt. No. 8. Defendant has moved to dismiss for lack of subject

23

matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 9. Brodzki has not opposed the motion to

24

dismiss, but has instead filed letters requesting 1) an injunction; 2) a temporary restraining order;

25

and 3) an emergency temporary restraining order, all of which are virtually identical in character.

26

Dkt. Nos. 16, 17, 20. The defendant has opposed the first motion for an injunction. Dkt. No. 17. As

27

1

28

In fact, Brodzki filed a separate complaint in this district one day after this action was filed. See
C11-05307-HRL, Brodzki v. United States of America. The two complaints are not identical,
though they both essentially seek damages for injuries caused by various government agents. The
allegations in the two complaints are equally implausible.

1

the time for opposing defendant’s motion to dismiss and plaintiff’s first three motions have now

2

expired, the matters are deemed submitted. The court finds that a hearing is unnecessary at this time,

3

and VACATES the January 31 hearing.

4
5

All parties have expressly consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 636(c).

6

I.

7

A. For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

8
9

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Legal Standard
A party may raise a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by motion prior to filing an answer to

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

a complaint. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). If the court determines that it does not have subject-matter

11

jurisdiction, it must dismiss the claim. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). A lack of jurisdiction is presumed

12

unless the party asserting jurisdiction establishes that it exists. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.

13

of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion may challenge either the sufficiency of

14

the pleadings to establish jurisdiction, or “the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact.”

15

Thornhill Pub. Co. v. General Tel. & Electronics Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). When a

16

defendant challenges the actual existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s allegations are

17

not taken as true and plaintiff bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Id.; Tosco Corp. v.

18

Communities for a Better Environment, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001). Because plaintiff is

19

proceeding pro se, the court liberally construes his complaint. Id.

20

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution,

21

laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A claim “arises under” federal law if,

22

based on the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal cause of action. Vaden v.

23

Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal

24

question do not satisfy this requirement. Id. at 1273.

25
26

2. Discussion
Defendant asserts that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because 1) plaintiff has not

27

established that the government has waived its sovereign immunity in this action, and 2) plaintiff

28

has not shown he is eligible to bring suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Dkt. No 9, p.

2

1

7. “The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued . . . .” United

2

States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941) (citations omitted). Waiver of the government's

3

sovereign immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v.

4

King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969). The FTCA is one such unequivocal waiver. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346,

5

2671-2680 (2008). However, a plaintiff may not bring suit under the FTCA until and unless he has

6

first presents his claim to the “appropriate [f]ederal agency” and that agency finally denies the claim

7

in writing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Only after these administrative remedies are exhausted does the

8

United States waive its sovereign immunity and make itself amenable to suit in federal court.

For the Northern District of California

While Brodzki does not specify in his complaint what law provides the basis for his claim,

10

United States District Court

9

the court finds that, as he appears to seek money damages arising out of “injury . . . caused by the

11

negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the

12

scope of his office or employment,” the FTCA is the appropriate federal law under which to

13

consider the plaintiff’s claim. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1); 2675(a). Brodzki has made no allegation

14

that he brought his claim to a federal agency, nor that any federal agency has denied his claim in

15

writing. Thus, this court cannot conclude that Brodzki has exhausted his administrative remedies

16

under the FTCA. Accordingly, the court finds that Brodzki has not proven waiver of the

17

government’s sovereign immunity and has not established that federal subject matter exists over this

18

action. Accordingly, the court must dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

19
20
21

B. For Failure to State a Claim
1. Legal Standard
On motion, a court may dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim. FED. R. CIV. P.

22

12(b)(6). The federal rules require that a complaint include a “short and plain statement” showing

23

the plaintiff is entitled to relief. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). The statement must “raise a right to relief

24

above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 55 (2007). However, only

25

plausible claims for relief with survive a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129

26

S.Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A claim is plausible if its factual content “allows the

27

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at

28

3

1

1949. A plaintiff does not have to provide detailed facts, but the pleading must include “more than

2

an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. at 1950.

3

In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court is ordinarily limited to the face of the complaint.

allegations pled in the complaint must be taken as true and reasonable inferences drawn from them

6

must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336,

7

337-38 (9th Cir. 1996); Mier v. Owens, 57 F.3d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Usher v. City of

8

Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987)). However, the court cannot assume that “the

9

[plaintiff] can prove facts which [he or she] has not alleged.” Associated General Contractors of

10

For the Northern District of California

Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). The factual

5

United States District Court

4

California, Inc. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983). “Nor is the

11

court required to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of

12

fact, or unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir.

13

2001) (citing Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th Cir. 1994)), amended on

14

other grounds by 275 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2001).

15
16

2. Discussion
Defendant also claims that Brodzki’s complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a

17

claim upon which relief can be granted. The government argues that the complaint is

18

“incomprehensible” and does not set forth any cognizable legal theories or supporting facts. Dkt.

19

No. 9, p. 8. Brodzki cites to the Bivens case in his complaint, which created a remedy for persons

20

whose constitutional rights were violated by federal officials acting in their individual capacities.

21

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In

22

order to state a claim under Bivens, a plaintiff must sue some federal official in his individual

23

capacity; “an individual may not maintain a Bivens action for monetary damages against the United

24

States.” Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348, 356 (9th Cir. Cal. 1987) (citing Arnsberg v. United

25

States, 757 F.2d 971, 980 (9th Cir. 1985)).

26

Brodzki’s complaint does name some federal officials, for instance, Amber Rogers, who is

27

apparently a U.S. Attorney. See Complaint. However, he has not alleged that Rogers or any other

28

federal officer has harmed him while acting in an individual capacity, nor has he actually sued any

4

1

federal official in an official or individual capacity. In addition, he does not offer any specific facts

2

that would explain the cause of his alleged injuries, other than to state that his “thoughts are being

3

compromised” by “communications equipment” that the government has disseminated to certain

4

radio stations. At no point does he allege facts that would suggest any government official has acted

5

in an individual capacity to cause him harm. Such allegations fall far short of stating a claim for

6

relief under Bivens. Accordingly, dismissal is also warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state

7

a claim.

8

3. Whether to Permit Amendment of the Complaint

For the Northern District of California

“A court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P.

10

United States District Court

9

15(a)(2). “‘Four factors are commonly used to determine the propriety of a motion for leave to

11

amend. These are: bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of

12

amendment.’” Ditto v. McCurdy, 510 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

13

“Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion for leave to amend.” Bonin v.

14

Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995). An amendment would be “futile” if there is no set of

15

facts can be proved which would constitute a valid claim or defense. See Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton,

16

Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988).

17

As discussed further in Section II, below, Brodzki has alleged facts that are fanciful and

18

appear to have little or no basis in reality. His claim that the government has harassed him and

19

violated his privacy through the use of secret communications equipment capable of reading his

20

thoughts cannot be taken seriously. Even if this court permitted him to amend his complaint, for

21

instance, to cure the deficiencies in subject matter jurisdiction or to state a claim under Bivens, there

22

are no facts plaintiff could possibly state that would make these factual allegations plausible enough

23

to survive another motion to dismiss. As many other district courts have concluded, plaintiff’s

24

complaint is frivolous and without merit, and amendment would indeed be futile. See Section II.B,

25

infra. Therefore, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate in this case.

26
27

C. Frivolous In Forma Pauperis Action
1. Legal Standard

28

5

1

A court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action if it finds that the action “fails to state a

2

claim on which relief may be granted” (comparable to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standard) or that

3

the action “is frivolous or malicious.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006); see Neitzke v. Williams,

4

490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “[the in forma

5

pauperis statute] is designed largely to discourage the filing of, and waste of judicial and private

6

resources upon, baseless lawsuits that paying litigants generally do not initiate because of the costs

7

of bringing suit.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28. A complaint, containing as it does both factual

8

allegations and legal conclusions, is “frivolous” where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in

9

fact. Id. at 325 (definition of “frivolous . . . embraces not only the arguable legal conclusion, but

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

also the fanciful factual allegation”). When determining whether to dismiss a complaint as

11

“frivolous” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a court has “‘the unusual power to pierce the veil of

12

the complaint’s factual allegations,’” meaning that it “is not bound, as it usually is when making a

13

determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the plaintiff’s

14

allegations.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Nietzke, 490 U.S. at 327).

15
16

2. Discussion
The Ninth Circuit has expressly held that frivolous litigation “is not limited to cases in which

17

a legal claim is entirely without merit . . . . [A] person with a measured legitimate claim may cross

18

the line into frivolous litigation by asserting facts that are grossly exaggerated or totally false.”

19

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1060-61 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the court finds

20

that plaintiff has asserted “fanciful factual allegation[s]” that must be considered “totally false.” As

21

stated above, Brodzki claims $500 million in damages for harassment and privacy violations arising

22

out of the government’s efforts to compromise his thoughts. Dkt. No. 1. This court knows of no

23

equipment in the government’s possession or in existence generally that would permit someone to

24

read the plaintiff’s thoughts and then broadcast them. In addition, Brodzki offers no facts to support

25

the plausibility of his claim for $500 million in damages.

26
27
28

6

Moreover, Brodzki appears to have filed no less than 63 complaints since 2009 in district

1
2

courts across the country, many of which allege identical or similar claims to those asserted here. 2

3

See also Dkt. No. 9, p. 2. The Northern District of Illinois has issued an order declaring Brodzki a

4

vexatious litigant for filing a dozen cases alleging facts substantially similar to those asserted in this

5

matter. See In re Brodzki, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141705 (N.D. Ill. July 23, 2010). District courts

6

across the country have dismissed cases filed by Brodzki on facts quite like those before this court,

7

and many of those courts have found Brodzki’s actions to be frivolous. See, e.g., Brodzki v. United

8

States DOJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122178 (D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2011); Brodzki v. City of N.

9

Richland Hills, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126587 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2011); Brodzki v. Texas, 2011

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59232 (W.D. Tex. June 2, 2011). This court also concludes that the plaintiff’s

11

action is frivolous.

12

For all of the foregoing reasons, this court DISMISSES plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

13

II.

14

Also before the court are plaintiff’s pending motion to appoint counsel and his three motions

PLAINTIFF’S PENDING MOTIONS

15

for injunctive relief. As this court finds that 1) it has no subject matter jurisdiction; 2) plaintiff fails

16

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and 3) plaintiff’s complaint is frivolous, it

17

DENIES plaintiff’s pending motions.

18

CONCLUSION

19

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion to dismiss be

20

GRANTED and plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice. All other pending motions are

21

DENIED.

22
23

Dated: January 26, 2012

24
25
26
27
28

HOWARD R. LLOYD
2

See, e.g., Brodzki v. Utah Ag, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7689 (D. Utah 2012); Brodzki v. Chief of
the Colo. State Patrol, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6240 (D. Colo. Jan. 19, 2012); Brodzki v. Fox Broad.,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4928 (D. Del. Jan. 13, 2012); Brodzki v. Cook County, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 3107 (D. Nev. Jan. 10, 2012); Brodzki v. United States DOJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122178
(D. Mass. Oct. 21, 2011) (all asserting claims substantially similar, if not identical, to those alleged
in this action). See also Brodzki v. N. Richland Hills Police Dep't, 413 Fed. Appx. 697 (5th Cir.
2011) (affirming dismissal by district court where Brodzki alleged similarly “fanciful” facts, though
of a different nature than the instant matter).
7

1

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

8

1

C11-05299 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

James A. Scharf

3

Notice will be mailed to:

4

Anthony Brodzki
6900 Herman Jared Drive
North Richland Hills, TX 76182

5
6

[e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

7
8
9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

9