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)
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?