2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-8-2012

Anthony Brodzki v. Tribune Co

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 12-1409

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Anthony Brodzki v. Tribune Co" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 1027.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/1027
1

ALD-166 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1409

___________

ANTHONY J. BRODZKI,

Appellant

v.

TRIBUNE COMPANY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Delaware

(D.C. Civil No. 1-11-cv-00918)

District Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 26, 2012

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit

(Opinion filed: May 8, 2012)

Judges

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Brodzki, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s order 

dismissing his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and denying his 

motion for reconsideration. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss Brodzki’s appeal 

pursuant to § 1915(e)(2), as well.
2

In October 2011, Brodzki filed a diversity action in the District Court against the 

Tribune Company, a Delaware corporation, alleging the torts of defamation and slander, 

and seeking $50 million in damages and an injunction prohibiting “WGN from all 

privacy violations mind and body.” In the complaint, Brodzki claimed that he was at 

home in Texas watching a Chicago Cubs baseball game on WGN when the Cubs’ general 

manager and the WGN host accused Brodzki on air of being a pedophile and of having 

publicly exposed himself. 

Brodzki applied for, and was awarded, in forma pauperis status, after which the 

District Court screened his complaint for legal sufficiency pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2). The District Court noted that Brodzki has a history of filing legally 

frivolous lawsuits, which has resulted in his being banned from filing civil suits in the 

Northern District of Illinois without prior court authorization and in the imposition of 

sanctions in at least one case in the Northern District of Texas. The District Court 

reasoned that the instant complaint -- one of at least seven similar complaints he has filed 

in the District of Delaware since 2010 -- did not adequately state a cause of action and 

that his allegations were “fantastical, delusional, irrational, and frivolous.” D. Ct. Doc. 

No. 5, 4. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the complaint under § 1915(e)(2). 

Brodzki filed an objection, which the District Court construed as a motion for 

reconsideration and then denied. Brodzki timely filed a notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s dismissal of the complaint under § 1915. See Allah v. 
3

Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). Because Brodzki was proceeding in forma 

pauperis, the District Court was required to dismiss his complaint if it failed to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The legal standard for 

dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) is the same as that 

for dismissing a complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Tourscher v. 

McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). To withstand scrutiny under 

§ 1915(e)(2), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Threadbare 

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do 

not suffice.” Id. at 678. Further, § 1915(e)(2) “accords judges . . . the unusual power to 

pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose 

factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). 

“Examples . . . are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios . . . .” Id.

We agree with the District Court that Brodzki’s bare allegations, without more, 

were insufficient to state a claim under 

at 328. 

Iqbal. Further, in light of the nature of Brodzki’s 

factual allegations, we perceive no error in the District Court’s conclusion that granting 

Brodzki leave to amend his complaint would have been futile.1

 1

 Before dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2), a 

plaintiff must be afforded the opportunity to amend the complaint unless amendment 

would be inequitable or futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 

114 (3d Cir. 2002). 

 Accordingly, it was 
4

appropriate for the District Court to dismiss his complaint.

Nor was there any error in denying Brodzki’s “objections” inasmuch as the 

objections amounted to a motion to reconsider. We review the denial of a motion to 

reconsider for abuse of discretion. See Caver v. City of Trenton, 420 F.3d 243, 258 (3d 

Cir. 2005). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a litigant must demonstrate: 

“(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence . . 

.; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” 

Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros

Because Brodzki is proceeding in forma pauperis on appeal, we must dismiss the 

appeal if it is legally frivolous. 

, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 

1999). Brodzki’s submission to the District Court did not satisfy any of these 

requirements, and the District Court appropriately denied the motion.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the foregoing reasons, 

we will dismiss the appeal.