Brodzki v. Fbi

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 21, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-0082
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANTHONY BRODZKI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-00082 (UNA) ) FBI, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, submitted an uncaptioned narrative docketed as a complaint

and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants

the IFP application and dismisses this action.

Plaintiff, a resident of North Richland Hills, Texas, sues the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) “for civil rights personal injury and slander.” ECF No. 1 at 1. He seeks

$5,000,000 and an injunction to compel the removal of what may be a “police electronic”

monitoring device issued by authorities in Las Vegas, Nevada. Id. at 1, 2.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,” possessing “only that power authorized

by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)

(citations omitted). It is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden

of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a) (requiring a party seeking relief in the district court to plead facts that bring the suit within the

court’s jurisdiction). As a United States agency component, the FBI is immune from suit save

“clear congressional consent[.]” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). A waiver of immunity “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text, and [it cannot] be implied.” Lane

v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (cleaned up).

The complaint, such as it is, does not establish a basis for exercising jurisdiction over the

claim for injunctive relief. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), waives

the United States’ immunity for certain claims seeking money damages. See id. §§2674, 2679-80.

Before filing suit, however, an FTCA claimant must exhaust administrative remedies by presenting

the claim to the appropriate federal agency and obtaining a final written denial of the claim. 28

U.S.C. § 2675(a). If an agency fails to render a decision within six months after the claim is

submitted, the claimant may proceed to court “any time thereafter” on what is “deemed” to be “a

final denial.” Id. Nothing suggests that Plaintiff has pursued, much less exhausted, administrative

remedies under the FTCA, and in this circuit, the FTCA’s presentment requirement is

“jurisdictional.” Simpkins v. D.C. Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366, 371 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing McNeil v.

United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993)); Norton v. United States, 530 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6-7 (D.D.C.

2021) (collecting cases); see also Abdurrahman v. Engstrom, 168 F. App’x 445, 445 (D.C. Cir.

2005) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of unexhausted FTCA claim for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction). Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS Date: April 21, 2026 United States District Judge