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