MICHAEL BRUZZONE V. INTEL CORPORATION, No. 22-15172 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 29 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-15172 D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01539-TLN-CKD MEMORANDUM* INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 15, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Michael A. Bruzzone appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action, declaring him a vexatious litigant, and entering a pre-filing review order against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and for an abuse of discretion the entering of a pre-filing review order against a vexatious litigant, RinggoldLockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014). We modify the district court’s order and otherwise affirm. The district court properly dismissed Bruzzone’s action against Intel because Bruzzone failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”). The district court declared Bruzzone a vexatious litigant and entered a prefiling order requiring a reviewing judge to refuse to file any complaint Bruzzone submits pro se against Intel Corporation. Although we affirm the decision to declare Bruzzone a vexatious litigant and enter a pre-filing order against him, the district court’s pre-filing order is not sufficiently narrowlytailored, as it does not allow the judge who reviews Bruzzone’s complaints the discretion to allow complaints deemed non-frivolous or non-duplicative to be filed. See Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 470-71 (9th Cir. 1990) (modifying a district court prefiling review order deemed overly broad). We modify the relevant 2 22-15172 portion of the order as follows, with emphasis on the addition: “The Duty Judge shall determine whether the case constitutes pro se litigation by Plaintiff against Intel; if so, then the Duty Judge shall dismiss the action without comment pursuant to this pre-filing order if the judge determines the complaint is duplicative or frivolous. . . .” Bruzzone’s request for transfer of this case, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 22-15172
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
