Brodzki v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 31

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd Denying 27 28 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2012)

1

** E-filed April 3, 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NOT FOR CITATION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.

No. C11-05299 HRL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

13
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

[Re: Docket Nos. 27, 28]

14
15

Defendant.
____________________________________/

16

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 The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous

19

and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and entered an order of judgment. Dkt. Nos. 23, 26. After

20

judgment was entered, plaintiff filed two letters to the court, one titled “motion for reconsideration”

21

and the other titled “motion with new information to ask the honorable judge to hear the case.” Dkt.

22

Nos. 27, 28. Both letters request that the court “rehear” plaintiff’s case. Defendant opposed the

23

“motions.” Dkt. No. 29.

24

“No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of the court

25

to file the motion.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). Plaintiff did not seek leave of court before filing his ostensible

26

motion for reconsideration. Despite this procedural error, and to give the plaintiff the benefit of

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 seek damages for injuries allegedly caused by various government agents. The
allegations in the two complaints are equally implausible.

1

liberal construction for pro se filings, the court construes his two letters as one request for leave to

2

file a motion for reconsideration (hereinafter, “motion”). See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 529, 520-

3

21 (1972) (stating that pro se pleadings should be “liberally construed.”)

4

The moving party in a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration must show that:

5

(1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, and the

6

party did not know of such fact or law before entry of the order; (2) new material facts or a change

7

of law occurred after the entry of the order; or (3) the court failed to consider material facts or legal

8

arguments presented before entry of the order. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

9

Plaintiff’s motion lacks merit. Not only did Brodzki fail to obtain leave of court before filing

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

his motion for reconsideration as required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), he also failed to make his

11

request before entry of judgment. Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) makes clear that motions for

12

reconsideration may only be made before the entry of judgment. See Dkt. No. 26 (entering judgment

13

of dismissal before plaintiff filed his motion). Even if these procedural errors were not present,

14

plaintiff has failed to satisfy the necessary standard for the court to grant leave to file a motion for

15

reconsideration. Plaintiff’s letters to the court fail to offer any of the three grounds for

16

reconsideration. Docket No. 27, the “motion for reconsideration,” is a partially handwritten letter

17

that says plaintiff sent “Form 95” to the FBI, and includes a photocopy of a U.S. Postal Service

18

certified mail receipt. Docket No. 28, the “motion with new information,” is a stream-of-

19

consciousness, largely unintelligible letter that seems to raise completely new and different facts

20

than those raised in the complaint, concerning: (1) the alleged rape that occurred when plaintiff was

21

a child, which was mentioned in his complaint; and (2) the fact that plaintiff and an unnamed police

22

officer “dated several of the same women,” which has no bearing on this case. There is no evidence

23

to suggest that any of the grounds for reconsideration are present here.

24

Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiff has raised no facts that would warrant the

25

filing of a motion for reconsideration or the setting aside of this court’s February 6, 2012 order.

26

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

27

IT IS SO ORDERED.

28

2

1
2

Dated: April 3, 2012
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

3

1

C11-05299 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

James A. Scharf

3

Notice will be mailed to:

4
5
6
7

[e-mail]

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

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

4