Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anthony Brodzki v. United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


April 3, 2012

ANTHONY BRODZKI, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Howard R. Lloyd United States Magistrate Judge

** E-filed April 3, 2012 **

NOT FOR CITATION

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Re: Docket Nos. 28, 29]

District Court For the Northern District of California United States

On November 1, 2011, Anthony Brodzki filed in forma pauperis a civil complaint against 17 the United States of America ("United States" or "government"), seeking $500 million in damages 18 for alleged harassment and privacy violations.*fn1 The court dismissed plaintiff's complaint as 19 frivolous and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and entered an order of judgment. Dkt. Nos. 23, 20 26. After judgment was entered, plaintiff filed two letters to the court, one titled "motion for 21 reconsideration" and the other titled "motion with new information to ask the honorable judge to 22 hear the case." Dkt. Nos. 28, 29. Both letters request that the court "rehear" plaintiff's case. 23

Defendant opposed the "motions." Dkt. No. 30. 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 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

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

(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

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

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

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. 28, 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. 29, 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

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

21 (1972) (stating that pro se pleadings should be "liberally construed.") 4

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

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

James A. Scharf james.scharf@usdoj.gov 3 Notice will be mailed to: Anthony Brodzki 5 6900 Herman Jared Drive North Richland Hills, TX 76182 6 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.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.