Ou-Young v. Roberts, Jr., et al

Filing 2

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE LAWSUIT. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/8/2014. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG,

Case No. 5:14-mc-80174-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
LAWSUIT

9
JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Chief Justice,
Supreme Court of the United States, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young has been declared a vexatious litigant; he must obtain

14

leave of court before “filing any further suits alleging any violations of the federal criminal

15

statutes, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), and 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the

16

FTCA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., involving parties that he named in” certain lawsuits

17

that he previously filed in this Court. (Order Granting United States’ Motion to Dismiss and

18

Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (“Vexatious Litigant Order”), ECF 40 in Case No. 3:13-

19

cv-04442-EMC)

20

Plaintiff has submitted for filing a new complaint that asserts 251 claims based upon

21

violations of the statutes identified above; the claims are asserted against defendants that Plaintiff

22

previously named as well as additional defendants. (Received Compl., ECF 1)

23

The proposed complaint does not allege any potentially cognizable claims. Plaintiff’s

24

claims against the defendants previously sued are barred by the Vexatious Litigant Order, which

25

ordered that those claims were “dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.”

26

Plaintiff’s claims against the additional defendants are dismissed sua sponte under Federal

27

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). See Omar v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.

28

1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). . . . Such a

1

dismissal may be made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”) As

2

explained in the Vexatious Litigant Order, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims

3

against judges, prosecutors, and court staff, because they are immune from suit. (See Vexatious

4

Litigant Order at 7-8) Moreover, the federal criminal statutes upon which Plaintiff relies do not

5

provide a private right of action. (Id. at 9) Finally, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative

6

remedies with respect to any FTCA claims. (Id. at 10-11)

7

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and because

8

Plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief, Plaintiff is DENIED leave to file the proposed complaint.

9

The Clerk shall close the file.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dated: July 8, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2