Ou-Young v. Busby et al

Filing 2

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT re 1 COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 11/25/2024. (dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 24-mc-80286-JST ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT v. MARK B. BUSBY, et al., Re: ECF No. 1 Defendants. 12 13 Now before the Court is Plaintiff Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young’s (“Plaintiff”) proposed 14 complaint filed on November 22, 2024, in Case No. 24-mc-80286 (“the Complaint”). Plaintiff has 15 been declared a vexatious litigant who must obtain leave of court before filing any suit alleging 16 certain types of claims. In 2013, Judge Chen issued a vexatious litigant order stating that Plaintiff 17 “must obtain leave of court before filing any further suits alleging any violations of the federal 18 criminal statutes, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), and 18 U.S.C. § 371, and 19 the FTCA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., involving parties that he named in the current 20 case” or certain other cases Plaintiff previously filed. See Ou-Young v. Roberts, No. C-13-4442 21 EMC, 2013 WL 6732118, at *11, 16–17 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013). In 2019, Judge Freeman 22 issued an order requiring Plaintiff to obtain leave of court before filing any complaint against 23 federal judges. See Ou-Young v. Stone, No. 19-cv-07000-BLF, 2019 WL 6619879 at *9 (N.D. 24 Cal. Dec. 5, 2019). As general duty judge, the undersigned now reviews the Complaint to 25 determine whether it is subject to either of these orders requiring pre-filing approval. 26 Having reviewed the Complaint, the Court finds that it does not fall within the scope of 27 either pre-filing approval order because the Complaint does not involve any of the parties or 28 claims subject to the orders. The prior orders require Plaintiff to obtain leave of court before filing 1 certain federal claims, and claims against federal judges and certain other federal officials. But 2 here, the Complaint alleges violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which is not one of the federal claims 3 prohibited by Plaintiff’s pre-filing orders. He also names as defendants California state entities 4 and officials, including the State of California, the Judicial Council, the State Bar, former 5 Governor Brown, and several state judges, as well as the Clerk of the Northern District of 6 California, which are not parties covered by either pre-filing order. Accordingly, the proposed 7 complaint is not subject to the above-referenced orders requiring pre-filing approval. The Court therefore directs the Clerk to file the Complaint and randomly assign the case 8 9 under its standard new case assignment process.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Dated: November 25, 2024 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Complaint makes what appear to be facially frivolous allegations against state court judges and other judicial employees who are immune from suit, as Plaintiff appears to concede. See ECF No. 1 ¶ c1 (“Moreover, said state defendants have acted under color of judicial immunity.”). Plaintiff has recently filed other cases with these same deficiencies. See Ou-Young v. State of California, Case No. 3:24-cv-07557-MMC (N.D. Cal.); Ou-Young v. State of California, Case No. 4:24-mc-80268-HSG (N.D. Cal.). “It will be for the district judge eventually assigned this case to decide whether further expansion of the scope of the pre-filing review order is warranted given Plaintiff’s litigation history.” Ou-Young v. State of California, Case No. 4:24-mc-80268-HSG, ECF No. 2 at 2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?