Kung v. State of California

Filing 38

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff Show Cause Response due by 11/13/2013. Defendants response by 11/20/13. Matter will be submitted on the papers. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/22/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

KIN WAH KUNG,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No.: 12-CV-00645 YGR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

vs.
EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19

THE COURT HEREBY ISSUES THIS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO PLAINTIFF, AS SET FORTH
HEREIN:
Federal courts, including this Court, “have an independent obligation to determine whether

20

subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v.

21

Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). Accordingly, “federal courts are required sua sponte to

22

examine jurisdictional issues such as standing.” B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260,

23

1264 (9th Cir. 1999). In keeping with that obligation, the Court hereby ORDERS pro se Plaintiff

24

Kin Wah Kung to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for lack of standing.

25

Kung “must demonstrate three elements which constitute the ‘irreducible constitutional

26

minimum’ of Article III standing.” San Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121,

27

1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). First,

28

Kung “must have suffered an ‘injury-in-fact’ to a legally protected interest that is both ‘concrete

1

and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent,’ as opposed to ‘“conjectural”’ or ‘“hypothetical.”’

2

Second, there must be a causal connection between [Kung’s] injury and the conduct complained of.

3

Third, it must be ‘likely’—not merely ‘speculative’—that [Kung’s] injury will be ‘redressed by a

4

favorable decision.’” Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61). In addition to these three

5

requirements, because Kung seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief “there is a further

6

requirement that [he] show a very significant possibility of future harm; it is insufficient for [him]

7

to demonstrate only a past injury.” Id. (citing Bras v. California Pub. Util. Comm’n, 59 F.3d 869,

8

873 (9th Cir. 1995)).
Here, it is not apparent that Kung has suffered an injury or that, if he did, the Court could

10

redress it. In support of Kung’s claim that California’s system of traffic fines violates the Eighth

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Amendment, Kung alleges that he received a traffic ticket issued pursuant to that system.

12

However, Kung also alleges that he appealed the ticket and won his appeal. (Dkt. No. 16 ¶¶ 9-15.)

13

Kung specifically alleges that the state refunded the amount of his original traffic ticket. (Id. ¶ 23.)

14

In light of Kung’s victory on appeal, it is not apparent that he has suffered a cognizable injury. If

15

he did, it is not apparent that the Court could redress his injury in light of the refund he already

16

received. Finally, it is not apparent that Kung has identified “a very significant possibility of future

17

harm” that could support his prayer for declaratory and injunctive relief from California’s traffic

18

fine regime.
Kung shall file a written response to this Order to Show Cause no later than Wednesday,

19
20

November 13, 2013. Kung’s response shall not exceed 8 pages.1 Defendants shall file a response

21

of no more than 5 pages, no later than Wednesday, November 20, 2013. The matter shall be

22

submitted on the papers. No replies are permitted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Date: October 22, 2013

26

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27
28

1

Normally the Court would allot only one week and five pages for such a response, but in
deference to Kung’s pro se status it eases those limits here.
2