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)
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?