Ou-Young v. Roberts et al

Filing 4

ORDER Denying Leave to File Certain Previously Filed Claims and Dismissing New Claims. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 1/29/14. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 Case No. 14-CV-80017 ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE CERTAIN PREVIOUSLY FILED CLAIMS AND DISMISSING NEW CLAIMS v. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., et al., Defendants. [Re Docket No. 1] 17 18 19 Plaintiff Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young has been declared a vexatious litigant and must obtain 20 leave of court before “filing any further suits alleging any violations of the federal criminal statutes, 21 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), and 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the FTCA [Federal 22 Tort Claims Act], codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., involving parties that he named in the current 23 case, or [in previously filed cases in this Court].” See Ou-Young v Roberts, Case No. 13-cv-4442 24 EMC, E.C.F. No. 40 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013) (Vexatious Litigant Order). 25 Plaintiff’s current complaint involves allegations of the named statutes against nine 26 defendants he has previously named. Plaintiff also names two additional defendants, District Judge 27 Edward M. Chen and Assistant United States Attorney Claire Cormier. Plaintiff has not named 28 these individuals as defendants in his prior cases, but alleges the same claims against them. ORDER Case No. 14-CV-80017-RMW LM -1- 1 The court has reviewed plaintiff’s complaint against all defendants, and finds no potentially 2 cognizable claims therein. Plaintiff’s claims against the nine defendants previously sued are barred 3 by Judge Chen’s Vexatious Litigant Order. The claims against Judge Chen and Ms. Cormier are 4 dismissed sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 5 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. 6 P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such a dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly 7 win relief.” (citation omitted)). As previously explained in plaintiff’s most recent case, the court 8 lacks jurisdiction over his claims because Judge Chen and Ms. Cormier are immune from suit. See 9 Vexatious Litigant Order at 7-8 (explaining judicial and prosecutorial immunity). Moreover, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 plaintiff cannot state a claim because the subject federal criminal statutes do not provide a private 11 right of action. Id. at 9. Finally, the court lacks jurisdiction over the FCTA claims asserted against 12 Judge Chen and Ms. Cormier because plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 13 10. Because plaintiff has not established jurisdiction and cannot state a claim for relief, the entire 14 complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 15 . 16 17 18 Dated: January 29, 2014 _________________________________ Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER Case No. 14-CV-80017-RMW LM -2- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG, Case Number: CV14-80017 RMW Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., et al., Defendant. / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on January 30, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young 1362 Wright Avenue Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Dated: January 30, 2014 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jackie Lynn Garcia, Deputy Clerk

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?