Ha v. Maddy et al

Filing 1

ORDER RETURNING COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/7/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

HUNG HA,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER RETURNING
COMPLAINT TO
PLAINTIFF

v.
JASON R. MADDY, BRIGITTE LOSSING,
and DOES 1 TO 25,
Defendants.

9
10

No. M 13-80283 CW

________________________________/

11
Plaintiff Hung Ha was declared a vexatious litigant by
12
Magistrate Judge Larson on July 29, 2010.

Ha v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,

13
2010 WL 3001224 (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Larson ordered that “any

14
future civil pro se filing by Plaintiff in this district shall be
15
subject to pre-filing review by a judge of this Court.”

Id. at

16
*5.

The Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed the order on appeal.

17
See Ha v. U.S. Atty. Gen., N.D. Cal. Case No. 09-5281, Docket No.
18
291.
19
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that
20
it shall not be filed because the claims set out therein are
21
frivolous.

Plaintiff alleges that, on November 10, 2013 “certain

22
events” occurred at the University of California Berkeley’s
23
Recreational Sports Facility.1

Plaintiff does not describe these

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that this is not the first complaint
Plaintiff has filed concerning events at the Recreational Sports
Facility. See, e.g., Ha v. Celaya, 12-80244; Ha v. Sweet B., 091392. Neither of those cases has proceeded past the pleading
stage.

1

events but alleges that they led to (1) the permanent revocation

2

of his access to all Recreational Sports facilities and programs

3

and (2) misdemeanor prosecution underway in the Alameda County

4

Superior Court for interference with campus activities.

5

Plaintiff alleges three separate causes of action.

First, he

6

alleges that the appeal proceeding to challenge the revocation of

7

his access to the Recreational Sports facilities and programs

8

constitutes a violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against

9

self-incrimination.

Plaintiff further alleges that the revocation

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

of his access to UC Berkeley’s Recreational Sports Facilities

11

constitutes an unlawful seizure in violation of his Fourth

12

Amendment Rights.

13

acts violate Hung Ha’s 13th Amendment rights, under the pretext of

14

doing something proper, righteous.”

15

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants’

Complaint ¶ 19.

Each of these claims is frivolous.

First, the Fifth

16

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination operates to protect

17

an individual from being compelled to testify in court.

18

is not being compelled to provide any information in the appeal

19

proceeding to challenge the revocation of his access to the

20

Recreational Sports facilities.

21

itself voluntary.

22

Plaintiff

Indeed the decision to appeal is

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim also fails.

Plaintiff

23

alleges that his “RSF lifetime or long-term RSF membership is

24

being seized as an element of coercion on him.”

25

Plaintiff does not further explain this claim.

26

what Plaintiff alleges he is being coerced to do.

27

Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and

28

seizures of things in which an individual maintains a reasonable
2

Complaint ¶ 18.
It is not clear
Moreover, the

1

expectation of privacy.

2

the revocation of Plaintiff’s gym membership.

3

The Fourth Amendment is not applicable to

Finally, the Thirteenth Amendment provides “Neither slavery

4

nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof

5

the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the

6

United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

7

Const. amend XIII, § 1.

8

facts alleged could give rise to a claim under the Thirteenth

9

Amendment.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

U.S.

The Court is unable to discern how the

Because Plaintiff’s proposed complaint is frivolous and fails

11

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, leave to file

12

the proposed complaint is DENIED.

13

ordered not to file the complaint.

14

to Plaintiff.

15

The Clerk of the Court is
Instead, it shall be returned

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated:

2/7/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3