Ke v. Schwarz

Filing 9

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/27/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

Case No. 17-cv-02555-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-03456-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-03600-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-03605-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-03855-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-03929-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-03930-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-04225-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-04227-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-04228-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-04230-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-04237-EMC
Case No. 17-cv-04259-EMC

In Re
HUI LIAN KE, a/k/a LILY KO,

9

Plaintiff.

10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
15
16

I.

17
18

INTRODUCTION

Hui Lian Ke, also known as Lily Ko, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, has filed

19

numerous pro se civil actions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and 1915A, the Court conducted

20

an initial review of the complaints in fifteen of her actions, and dismissed them with leave to

21

amend. In thirteen of those actions, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. This order

22

dismisses those thirteen actions for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (She

23

did file amended complaints in the other two actions (i.e., Ko v. Gonzalez, No. 17-cv-4226 EMC,

24

and Ke v. Sandoval, No. 17-cv-4229 EMC), and the Court will address those pleadings separately

25

in those actions.)

26
27
28

II.

DISCUSSION

Commencing in early 2017, Plaintiff began filing many actions in this Court. By the end
of July 2017, she had filed fifteen actions that were assigned to the undersigned. The Court

1

reviewed those fifteen actions, and issued a single Order Requiring Amended Complaints And In

2

Forma Pauperis Applications (“Order Requiring Amended Complaints”) that covered those

3

fifteen actions. Docket No. 12 in Case No. 17-cv-2555 EMC.1
In the Order Requiring Amended Complaints, the Court explained that the complaints did

4
5

not provide enough information for the Court to be able to provide even a very general description

6

of the event and omissions giving rise to her claims.

7

In Case No. 17-cv-2555 EMC, Ms. Ko purports to bring the action
on behalf of an Estate and two individuals, and asserts that several
torts and wrongs were committed against individuals other than
herself. The plaintiff in the action is listed as Hui Lian Ke,
“executor for the Lily Helen Ko Estate, for Ke, Junjie, man, for Ke,
Shengli, woman aggrieved, claimant, prosecutor.” (Docket No. 1 at
1.) She does not explain who the individuals are, or how she has
any authority to present claims on their behalf. It also is unclear
whether the “Lily Helen Ko Estate” is an Estate of a deceased
person or is simply an alternative way of referring to herself. Ms.
Ke lists six individuals as defendants, but does not explain who any
of those defendants are. The complaint summarily alleges that some
of the defendants carried away Junjie and Shengli from their home
in 2014, used them for prostitution, held them against their will,
drugged them, physically attacked them, and enslaved them. . . .

8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15

In Case No. 17-cv-3600 EMC, the complaint is incomprehensible.
The complaint lists several claims for trespass, but the trespassing
allegedly took place against things other than real property, i.e., the
alleged trespasses were on the Estate of Lily Helen Ko and other
Estates, “trespass from temporary restraining order (TRO) issued
upon each said estate containing defects,” “trespass from
copyrights,” and “trespass from defamation.” The complaints in
Case Nos. 17-cv-3456 EMC and 17-cv-3605 EMC, urge similarly
incomprehensible claims.

16
17
18
19
20

In Case No. 17-cv-3855 EMC, the complaint is against the Santa
Clara County Sheriff and appears to pertain to Ms. Ke’s
incarceration and/or the impoundment of her car. Although the
general subject matter can be discerned, the actual claims are
incomprehensible.

21

22
23

In the rest of the cases, the defendants are identified but the claims
are incomprehensible. For example, in Case No. 17-cv-3929 EMC,
Ms. Ke sues Michael Gilman, a prosecutor, and alleges claims for,

24
25
1

26
27
28

Since the issuance of the Order Requiring Amended Complaints, Plaintiff has filed another
fifteen civil actions that have been assigned to the undersigned. Those newer civil actions will be
addressed separately at a later date.
Plaintiff also has filed several petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Those are pending
before Judge Chhabria. See, e.g., Ke v. Davis, Case No. 17-cv-4826 VC.
2

among other things, “trespass on the authenticated certificate of live
birth,” and “certiorari to bring forth the valid contract with claimant
to probation.” Docket No. 1 at 1 in Case No. 17-cv-3929 EMC.
Ms. Ke makes similarly incomprehensible “trespass” and
“certiorari” claims against other actors in state court cases. See, e.g.,
Case No. 17-cv-3930 EMC (county counsel); Case No. 17-cv-4225
EMC (court-appointed counsel); Case No. 17-cv-4226 EMC (court
clerks); Case No. 17-cv-4227 EMC (public defender); Case No. 17cv-4228 EMC (superior court judges); Case No. 17-cv-4229 EMC
(custodian of records for Department of Family & Children
Services); Case No. 17-cv-4230 EMC (superior court judge); Case
No. 17-cv-4237 EMC (doctors); and Case No. 17-cv-4226 EMC
(Governor).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Docket No. 12 at 1-3 in Case No. 17-cv-2555 EMC.
Each complaint was dismissed with leave to amend because it failed to state a claim upon

9

incomprehensible because, although numerous legal concepts were mentioned, there was not an

12
For the Northern District of California

which relief may be granted. Id. at 4-7. The Court explained that each complaint was largely

11

United States District Court

10

understandable set of facts to go with any of those legal concepts. Id. at 4. The Court further

13

explained that, in her amended complaint in each action, Ms. Ke had to allege a short and plain

14

statement of each claim for relief she wanted to assert; had to link one or more defendants to each

15

claim; and had to plead any fraud with particularity. Id. at 5-6. The Court also directed Ms. Ke to

16

explain why she was in jail so that the Court could determine whether the rule from Heck v.

17

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), would require a stay of part or all of any of her actions. Docket

18

No. 12 at 6 in Case No. 17-cv-2555 EMC. The Court set a deadline for September 18, 2017 for

19

Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in each action.

20

The deadline for the filing of amended complaints has passed. It is now time to consider

21

the materials she filed in each action in response to the Order Requiring Amended Complaints.2

22

For each action, the Court will describe what Ms. Ke filed in response to the Order For Amended

23

Complaints, and explain the reason for its dismissal of each action.

24
2

25
26
27
28

Hui Lian Ke is also known as Lily Ko. She wrote in several of her filings that the title “Ms.”
should not be used for her name. See, e.g., Docket No. 12 in Case No. 17-cv-3456 EMC, and
Docket No. 9 in Case No. 17-cv-3600 EMC. And she stated in one action that the Lily Ko Estate
is withdrawn, while in some other actions she stated that Lily Ko was to replace Hui Lian Ke.
Compare Docket No. 14 in Case No. 17-cv-2555 EMC with Docket No. 9 in Case No. 17-cv-3600
EMC. The use of “Ms.” by the Court was simply a courtesy and had no legal significance. In an
effort to reduce the confusion prompted by her changes in her name, the Court will refer to her just
by her litigation position, i.e., Plaintiff.
3

1

Ke v. Thurman, Case No. 17-cv-2555 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint,

which she states that Junjie Ke is her son and Shengli Ke is her daughter, and included a sort of

4

birth certificate she handwrote for each child stating that she is the owner of the afterbirth of each

5

child, having contributed DNA. She states that she has “never received full disclosure to the

6

events and [has] done [her] best to recollect,” and that she and her children have foreign passports.

7

None of these facts suggest the violation of any right under the Constitution or laws of the United

8

States, as is necessary to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The document is not the amended

9

complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which

10

relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the

11

Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them.

12
For the Northern District of California

and the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

3

United States District Court

2

For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

13

granted. The clerk shall close the file.

14

Ke v. Fleming, Case No. 17-cv-3456 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint,

15

and the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

16

which she states that she wants the action stayed “until Claimant closes it when all matters are

17

settled in full.” Docket No. 12. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has

18

been filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway,

19

given the incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended

20

complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which

21

relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the

22

Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them.

23

For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

24

granted. The clerk shall close the file.

25

Ke v. Yang, Case No. 17-cv-3600 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and

26

the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

27

which she states that she wants the action “to stay open until Claimant closes it when all matters

28

are settled in full.” Docket No. 9. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has
4

1

been filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway,

2

given the incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended

3

complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which

4

relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the

5

Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them.

6

For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

7

granted. The clerk shall close the file.

complaint, and the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ

10

of error,” in which she states that she wants the action “to stay open until Claimant closes it when

11

all matters are settled in full.” Docket No. 10. This action will not be stayed because no viable

12
For the Northern District of California

Ke v. Magallanes, Case No. 17-cv-3605 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended

9

United States District Court

8

pleading has been filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are

13

underway, given the incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the

14

amended complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon

15

which relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be

16

futile: the Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to

17

cure them. For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief

18

may be granted. The clerk shall close the file.

19

Ke v. Smith, Case No. 17-cv-3855 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and

20

the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

21

which she states that she wants the action “to stay the proceeding until closed by Claimant.”

22

Docket No. 9. She also filed a “writ of supersedeas” to demand a stay of this action. Id. at 2.

23

This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has been filed and there is no basis to

24

think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway, given the incomprehensible nature of

25

her pleadings. Neither the “writ of error” nor the “writ of supersedeas” is the amended complaint

26

the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and both fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

27

Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the Court had explained the

28

pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them. For these reasons, this
5

1

action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk shall

2

close the file.

3

Ko v. Gilman, Case No. 17-cv-3929 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint,

4

and the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

5

which she states that she wants the action stayed “until Claimant closes it when all matters are

6

settled in full.” Docket No. 8. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has been

7

filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway, given the

8

incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended complaint the

9

Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them. For these

12
For the Northern District of California

granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the Court had

11

United States District Court

10

reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The

13

clerk shall close the file.

14

Ko v. Vasquez, Case No. 17-cv-3930 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint,

15

and the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

16

which she states that she wants the action stayed “until Claimant closes it when all matters are

17

settled in full.” Docket No. 9. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has been

18

filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway, given the

19

incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended complaint the

20

Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

21

granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the Court had

22

explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them. For these

23

reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The

24

clerk shall close the file.

25

Ke v. Pfaff, Case No. 17-cv-4225 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and

26

the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

27

which she states that she wants the action “to stay open until Claimant closes it when all matters

28

are settled in full.” Docket No. 6. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has
6

1

been filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway,

2

given the incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended

3

complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which

4

relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the

5

Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them.

6

For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

7

granted. The clerk shall close the file.

8
9

Ke v. Valeros, Case No. 17-cv-4227 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint,
and the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

are settled in full.” Docket No. 7. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has

12
For the Northern District of California

which she states that she wants the action “to stay open until Claimant closes it when all matters

11

United States District Court

10

been filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway,

13

given the incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended

14

complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which

15

relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the

16

Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them.

17

For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

18

granted. The clerk shall close the file.

19

Ke v. McLoy, Case No. 17-cv-4228 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and

20

the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

21

which she states that she wants the action “to stay open until Claimant closes it when all matters

22

are settled in full.” Docket No. 6. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has

23

been filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway,

24

given the incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended

25

complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which

26

relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the

27

Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them.

28

For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
7

1
2

granted. The clerk shall close the file.
Ke v. Schwartz, Case No. 17-cv-4230 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint,

which she states that she wants the action “to stay open until Claimant closes it when all matters

5

are settled in full.” Docket No. 6. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has

6

been filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway,

7

given the incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended

8

complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which

9

relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the

10

Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them.

11

For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

12
For the Northern District of California

and the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

4

United States District Court

3

granted. The clerk shall close the file.

13

Ke v. Cohen, Case No. 17-cv-4237 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, and

14

the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

15

which she states that she wants the action “to stay open until Claimant closes it when all matters

16

are settled in full.” Docket No. 6. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has

17

been filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway,

18

given the incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended

19

complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which

20

relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the

21

Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them.

22

For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

23

granted. The clerk shall close the file.

24

Ke v. Valeros, Case No. 17-cv-4259 EMC: Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint,

25

and the deadline by which to do so has passed. She did file a document entitled “writ of error,” in

26

which she states that she wants “to stay the proceeding until closed by Claimant when all matters

27

are settled in full.” Docket No. 6. This action will not be stayed because no viable pleading has

28

been filed and there is no basis to think that any sort of settlement negotiations are underway,
8

1

given the incomprehensible nature of her pleadings. The “writ of error” is not the amended

2

complaint the Court ordered Plaintiff to file, and the document fails to state a claim upon which

3

relief may be granted. Further leave to amend will not be granted because it would be futile: the

4

Court had explained the pleading deficiencies and Plaintiff was unable or unwilling to cure them.

5

For these reasons, this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

6

granted. The clerk shall close the file.
III.

7
8
9

CONCLUSION

Each of the referenced actions is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. The Clerk shall close the file for each of the referenced actions.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13
14
15

Dated: October 27, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9