v. Ou-Young

Filing 2

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINTS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/5/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2015)

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. 15-mc-80149-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

BRUCE IVES, an individual, and F.
JOSEPH WARIN, an individual,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants.

12

----------------------------------------------------

13

KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 15-mc-80151-EJD

v.
BRUCE IVES, an individual, and F.
JOSEPH WARIN, an individual,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
COMPLAINTS

19
20

Pro se Plaintiff Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young has been declared a vexatious litigant who must

21

obtain leave of court before filing certain types of lawsuits, including those “alleging any

22

violations of the federal criminal statutes, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c),

23

and 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the FTCA, codified at 28 U.S.C. §2671 et seq.” See Order Granting

24

United States’ Mot. to Dismiss and Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant (“Vexatious Litigant

25

Order”), ECF 40 in Case No. 3:13-cv-04442-EMC.

26

Before the Court are two proposed complaints submitted by Plaintiff and received by the

27

Court on May 29, 2015 and June 1, 2015, in which Plaintiff purports to sue Bruce Ives and Joseph

28

Warin. See Received Complaint, ECF 1 in Case No. 5:15-mc-80149-BLF; Received Complaint,

1

ECF 1 in Case No. 5:15-mc-80151-EJD. The two proposed complaints, which are identical, assert

2

claims of “Fabrication” and “Intimidation” under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b),

3

respectively. Thus the proposed complaints fall squarely within the above-referenced order

4

requiring pre-filing review.

5

The proposed complaints are substantially similar to two prior proposed complaints

6

submitted to this Court in Ou-Young v. Ives, et al., Case No. 14-mc-80332-BLF, and Ou-Young v.

7

Ives, et al., Case No. 14-mc-80335-BLF. In both cases, this Court determined that the proposed

8

complaints failed to state a cognizable claim and thus denied Plaintiff leave to file them.

9

Specifically, the Court noted that the statutory provisions under which Plaintiff sought to bring his
claims, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)-(c), are federal criminal statutes that do not confer a private right of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

action. Because Plaintiff’s current proposed complaints are brought under those same statutory

12

provisions, they likewise fail to state a cognizable claim.

13

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES leave to file the proposed complaints.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: June 5, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2