BRODZKI v. FBI

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
Case 1:26-cv-00082-UNA Document 5 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
Case 1:26-cv-00082-UNA Document 5 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 2