Brosnan

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 JOHN BROSNAN, Case No. 25-cv-10678-KAW

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

9 v. DISMISS; DENYING MOTION TO

EXPORT

10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 6, 9

11 Defendant.

12

13 On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff John Brosnan filed the instant action against Defendant

14 United States of America, alleging that Defendant violated his Fifth Amendment right to a fair

15 trial. (Compl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 1.) Pending before the Court are: (1) Plaintiff’s “motion for

16 permission to export,” and (2) Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Pl.’s Mot. to Export, Dkt. No. 6;

17 Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 9.)

18 The Court previously deemed this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing

19 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). (Dkt. No. 16.) Having considered the filings and the relevant

20 legal authorities, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and DENIES Plaintiff’s

21 motion to export.

22 I. BACKGROUND

23 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fifth Amendment by failing to disclose

24 evidence to him, resulting in him being convicted and sent to prison.1 (Compl. ¶¶ 3-5.)

25

26

1 Per Defendant, the trial at issue appears to be for Plaintiff’s 2010 conviction of “perjury,

obstruction of justice, and aggravated identity theft in connection with submitting a false

27

document to Judge Alsup in an unrelated civil proceeding.” (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 1; see also

1 Specifically, Defendant allegedly failed to provide a piece of mail that would have shown the jury

2 that Defendant’s “main witness Brysk was profitting [sic] from being involved in a criminal

3 enterprise and was testifying to protect that criminal enterprise.” (Compl. ¶¶ 31-34 (bold

4 omitted).) Defendant also allegedly had the court remove information from the transcript that

5 would have told the jury about this mail. (Compl. ¶ 47.)

6 Plaintiff also alleges that he developed a Perpetual Motion Electricity Generator and a

7 Wave Motion Electricity Generator that can end global warming, but that after he was sent to

8 prison, he was prevented from earning money from selling these technologies. (Compl. ¶¶ 70,

9 72.) For example, the Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused to grant a patent for the

10 Perpetual Motion Electricity Generator because “the USPTO claims it would violate the laws of

11 thermodynamics.” (Compl. ¶ 88.) Plaintiff also sought a permit to export his technology, but his

12 application was voided because the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls

13 were demanding detailed plans of how his technology works. (Compl. ¶¶ 97-98.)

14 On December 15, 2025, Plaintiff filed this case, asserting a single cause of action for

15 violation of the Fifth Amendment and seeking either $7 billion or the ability to “export his

16 technologies without providing plans to the USA.” (Compl. at 13.) On January 18, 2026, Plaintiff

17 filed his motion to export. On February 5, 2026, Defendant appeared and filed a motion to

18 dismiss with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant also filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s

19 motion to export. (Def.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 10.)

20 Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss was due on February 19, 2026.

21 After Plaintiff failed to file an opposition, the Court issued an order to show cause, stating:

22 “Plaintiff is ordered, on or before March 2, 2026, 1) to file an opposition or statement of non-

23 opposition to the pending motion, and 2) to file a response to this order of show cause explaining

24 why the opposition was not timely filed.” (Dkt. No. 14.) The following day, Plaintiff filed a reply

25 regarding his motion to export. (Pl.’s Reply, Dkt. No. 15.)

26 To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

27 II. LEGAL STANDARD

1 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion tests whether a complaint

2 alleges grounds for federal subject matter jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss for lack of subject

3 matter jurisdiction will be granted if the complaint on its face fails to allege facts sufficient to

4 establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036,

5 1039 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2003). In considering a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court “is not restricted to the

6 face of the pleadings, but may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve

7 factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction.” McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d

8 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988). Once a party has moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

9 under Rule 12(b)(1), the opposing party bears the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction.

10 See Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115, 1122 (9th Cir. 2010).

11 III. DISCUSSION

12 As an initial matter, Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, despite the

13 Court sua sponte extending the deadline to give him a further opportunity to respond. (Dkt. No.

14 14.) The Court’s standing order provides: “The failure of the opposing party to file a

15 memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion shall constitute consent to the

16 granting of the motion.” (Judge Westmore Standing Order ¶ 22.) Thus, the Court construes

17 Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as consent and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss with

18 prejudice.

19 In any case, dismissal with prejudice is warranted based on the merits of the motion.

20 Defendant moves for dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity. In general, “[t]he United

21 States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit unless it has waived its immunity.” Consejo de

22 Desarrollo Economico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157, 1173 (9th Cir. 2007).

23 Further, “[t]o confer subject matter jurisdiction in an action against a sovereign, in addition to a

24 waiver of sovereign immunity, there must be statutory authority vesting a district court with

25 subject matter jurisdiction.” Alvarado v. Table Mt. Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1016 (9th Cir.

26 2007). Thus, a plaintiff “must establish some form of statutory authorization for their claims.” Id.

27 Here, Plaintiff brings a single claim for violation of the Fifth Amendment. (See Compl. at

] the Court with subject matter jurisdiction. Indeed, with respect to monetary damages, courts have

2 || dismissed Fifth Amendment claims “because the federal government has not waived sovereign

3 || immunity for monetary damages for constitutional violations.” J/iva v. United States Marshals

4 || Serv., No. 24-cv-03720-TSH, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231028, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2024);

5 || see also FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486 (1994) (finding that actions for monetary damages for

6 || alleged constitutional violations could not be brought against a federal agency). As to □□□□□□□□□□□

7 || request for equitable relief regarding export of his technology, Plaintiff cites no legal authority that

8 || would constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity or provide statutory authorization for the claim

9 || in either his complaint or motion to export, and the Court knows of none.”

10 The Court further finds that dismissal with prejudice is warranted because amendment

11 appears futile. There is nothing to suggest that a waiver of sovereign immunity or a statutory

a 12 authorization for Plaintiff’s claim exists.

13 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the case with prejudice. Because the Court dismisses

Y 14 || the case with prejudice, Plaintiff's motion to export is DENIED as moot.

15 IV. CONCLUSION

A 16 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and

17 || DENIES Plaintiffs motion to export. The Court DISMISSES the case with prejudice.

Zz 18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: March 10, 2026 '

20 KANDIS A. WESTMORE

21 United States Magistrate Judge

22

23

24

29 2 At best, 35 U.S.C. § 145 permits an applicant to bring a civil action to obtain a patent, but only

26 || after a patent application has been rejected twice and then appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal

Board. See 35 U.S.C. § 134. Plaintiff alleges no facts to suggest that he has exhausted his

97 || administrative remedies, and thus the Court would still lack subject matter jurisdiction. Panos v.

Dir. of the United States PTO, Civil Action No. 3:14cv698, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133898, at *25

28 (E.D. Va. Sep. 30, 2015). Further, § 145 does not provide for Plaintiffs requested equitable relief,

i.e., the ability to export his technology without providing plans to Defendant.