Huang v. Bell et al
Filing
122
ORDER DENYING 118 MOTION FOR THREE-JUDGE PANEL. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 1/22/2014. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2014)
1
**E-Filed 1/22/2014**
2
3
4
5
6
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
For the Northern District of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
United States District Court
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
YONG TAN HUANG,
Plaintiff,
13
14
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR THREEJUDGE PANEL
v.
15
Case No. 5:10-cv-01640-JF (PSG)
TIM BELL, et al.,
[re: ECF No. 118]
16
Defendants.
17
18
19
Plaintiff Yong Tan Huang (“Huang”), proceeding pro se, filed this action in the Santa Clara
20
Superior Court, alleging that he suffered personal injuries while constructing a deck on the property
21
of Tim and Gayle Bell. ECF No. 1. Huang subsequently filed a Notice of Removal that purported
22
to remove his own complaint from the Santa Clara Superior Court. Id. On September 19, 2011, this
23
Court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 49. The Court explained
24
that Huang had not asserted diversity jurisdiction and that his allegations were insufficient to
25
establish federal question jurisdiction. Id. On February 4, 2013, the Court denied Huang’s motion
26
to reopen the case, again explaining that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his claims.
27
ECF No. 110. On September 25, 2013, the Court denied Huang’s motion for leave to file a motion
28
for reconsideration. ECF No. 116.
Case No. 5:10-cv-01640-JF (PSG)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR THREE-JUDGE PANEL
1
On November 21, 2013, Huang filed a motion requesting appointment of a three-judge panel
2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284. Mot. at 2:11-12, ECF No. 118. Section 2284 provides as follows:
3
“A district court of three judges shall be convened when otherwise required by Act of Congress, or
4
when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional
5
districts or the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.” Huang does not assert an
6
apportionment challenge. Nor does he identify a statute that “otherwise require[s]” the convening of
7
a three-judge panel in this case.
8
The caption of Huang’s motion cites numerous statutes (most of which are not mentioned in
For the Northern District of California
the body of the pleading), but none of them provides authority for the requested three-judge panel.
10
United States District Court
9
For example, some of the statutes define the crime of perjury, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 1623, while
11
others define federal question and diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. A number of
12
statutes confer upon district courts original jurisdiction to hear certain types of civil actions. See 28
13
U.S.C. §§ 1343 (action implicating civil rights and elective franchise); 1347 (action to partition
14
lands where the United States is a tenant in common or a joint tenant); 1357 (action arising from
15
federal laws governing collection of revenues and voting rights); 1361 (action to compel a federal
16
officer or employee to perform a duty). Yet another statute governs actions alleging deprivation of
17
civil rights under color of state law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. One statute, at least, is marginally
18
relevant, providing that a three-judge panel’s order granting or denying injunctive relief may be
19
appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court; however, that statute does not authorize the
20
convening of a three-judge panel in the first instance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1253. The remaining statutes
21
upon which Huang relies have been repealed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2282.
22
Accordingly, Huang’s motion requesting appointment of a three-judge panel is DENIED.
23
24
DATED: January 22, 2014
_________________________
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 5:10-cv-01640-JF (PSG)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR THREE-JUDGE PANEL
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?