NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. BRUZZONE, No. 22-15172
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01539-TLN-CKD
v.
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, Ringgold-
Lockhart 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 narrowly-
tailored, 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