Ou-Young v. Breyer

Filing 2

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINTS. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/29/2014. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/29/2014: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NOs. 5:14-cv-80214 EJD;
5:14-cv-80215 EJD

KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG,

11
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
COMPLAINTS

Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

v.
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge,
United States Distrct Court for the Northern
District of California

15
Defendant(s).
16
17

/
KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG,

18
Plaintiff(s),
19
20
21

v.
BETH L. FREEMAN, District Judge, United
States Distrct Court for the Northern District
of California

22
Defendant(s).
23
24

/
Plaintiff Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young (“Plaintiff”) is subject to a pre-filing order which requires

25

him to obtain leave of court before initiating new litigation. See Docket Item No. 40 in Case No.

26

3:13-cv-04442 EMC. Presently before the court are two Complaints submitted by Plaintiff. This

27

court reviews the Complaints to “determine whether Plaintiff has stated a potentially cognizable

28

claim in a short, intelligible and plain statement.” Id.
1
CASE NOs. 5:14-cv-80214 EJD; 5:14-cv-80215 EJD
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINTS

1

Plaintiff has not done so. He seeks to assert claims against two federal judges - Judge

2

Charles R. Breyer and Judge Beth Labson Freeman - for “obstruction” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1509.

3

But Plaintiff cannot state a cognizable claim under that criminal statute because it neither provides

4

nor implies a private right of action. See generally, Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.

5

1980). Moreover, civil liability cannot be imposed on Judge Breyer and Judge Freeman for the

6

judicial acts alleged. Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243-44 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that

7

“[a] judge is generally immune from a civil action for damages” for acts done in a judicial capacity,

8

no matter how erroneous or injurious it may be). Thus, judicial immunity would preclude these

9

lawsuits even if Plaintiff had invoked a statute which allows for private enforcement.
For these reasons, the court finds that the instant Complaints fall within the scope of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

pleadings barred by the pre-filing order. Accordingly, leave to file these Complaints is DENIED.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: July 29, 2014
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
CASE NOs. 5:14-cv-80214 EJD; 5:14-cv-80215 EJD
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINTS