Ou-Young v. Leavy ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 KUANG-BAO PAUL OU-YOUNG, 8 Case No. 5:19-cv-07232-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 24, 30 EDWARD LEAVY, et al., Defendants. 613 I. Background 14 On December 20, 2013, Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order declaring Plaintiff to be a 3 15 || vexatious litigant and directing pre-filing screening of any complaint filed by Plaintiff involving 16 || certain statutes and parties. See Vexatious Litigant Order, Case No. 13-cv-04442, ECF 40 (“First 17 Screening Order’). Specifically, the First Screening Order requires Plaintiff to obtain leave of 18 court before filing any further suits alleging any violations of the federal criminal statutes, 19 || pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (c), and 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the Federal Tort 20 || Claims Act (“FTCA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., involving parties named in Case No. 21 13-4442 or in Plaintiff’s prior cases in this District. 22 On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action against the Honorable Edward Leavy, 23 Senior Circuit Judge; the Honorable Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judge; and the Honorable 24 || Carlos T. Bea, Senior Circuit Judge. Dkt. No. 1 (the “Original Complaint”). The Original 25 || Complaint was screened and the Clerk of Court determined that the First Screening Order did not 26 || apply. See Case No. 19-mc-80254-EJD. 27 28 Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 On December 5, 2019, Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued an Order Requiring That 2 |} Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young Obtain Leave of Court Before Filing Any Complaint Against Federal 3 Judges in Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF, ECF No. 26 (“Second Screening Order’). The Second 4 Screening Order states, in pertinent part: 5 1) Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young must obtain leave of court before filing any complaint 6 that alleges claims against federal judges, including United States Supreme Court 7 justices, federal circuit judges, federal district judges, federal magistrate judges, 8 and federal bankruptcy judges; 9 2) The Clerk of Court shall not accept for filing any complaint alleging claims against 10 federal judges until the complaint has been reviewed by a judge and approved for 11 filing. The Clerk shall forward any such complaint to the general duty judge for 12 pre-filing screening; and 13 3) This order applies to complaints that Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young seeks to file in this 14 district, complaints filed in state court and removed to this district, and complaints 3 15 filed in adversary proceedings in this district’s bankruptcy court. a 16 Second Screening Order, at 15-16. 5 17 On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in this action. 18 Dkt. No. 15. The FAC adds over one hundred new defendants, including, among others, dozens 19 || of additional federal judges and federal court personnel, U.S. Department of Justice personnel, 20 || U.S. Patent and Trademark Office personnel, members of the United States Congress, members of 21 the current and former White House administrations, and other current or former federal 22 || employees (the “Federal Defendants”). The FAC also alleges claims against local law 23 enforcement offices and a number of large corporations. Plaintiff did not seek or obtain leave of 24 || court before filing the FAC. 25 On March 3, 2020, the Assistant United States Attorney Christopher F. Jeu notified the 26 || Court of the applicability of the Screening Order. On March 16, Plaintiff filed a motion to 27 || disqualify the U.S. Attorney’s Office as counsel. Dkt. No. 24. The U.S. Attorney’s Office 28 Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 opposes the motion. Dkt. No. 27. 2 On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to vacate the First and Second 3 Screening Orders. Dkt. No. 26. On April 1, 2020, the Court denied that motion. Dkt. No. 28. On 4 April 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second motion to vacate the First and Second Screening Orders. 5 || Dkt. No. 30. 6 Il. DISCUSSION 7 In the present case, Plaintiff's FAC alleges claims against numerous federal judges, 8 including United States Supreme Court justices, federal circuit judges, federal district judges, and 9 || federal magistrate judges. The FAC also names some of the defendants named in his prior 10 || lawsuits, including: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Judge Wilken, Judge Koh, Judge Lloyd, 1] Attorney General Holder, Assistant United States Attorney James Scharf, former United States 12 || Attorney Melinda Haag, and federal court employee Tiffany Salinas-Harwell, among others. 13 Therefore, both the First and Second Screening Orders apply. Having reviewed the FAC, the 14 || court finds that it fails to state a potentially cognizable claim against any of the Federal 3 15 || Defendants named in the action. a 16 “Judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for their judicial acts.” Adams v. 5 17 Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability, 165 F. Supp. 3d 911, 921 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (citing S 18 || Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also 19 || Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991) (per curiam); Atkinson-Baker & Assoc. v. Kolts, 7 F.3d 20 1452, 1454 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Plaintiff’s claims against the judges are based upon 21 || judicial acts, such as denying his appeal, denying his petition for certiorari, denying motions to 22 || disqualify, dismissing his misconduct complaints, dismissing his lawsuits, denying his motions to 23 || intervene, issuing the First and Second Screening Orders, failing to respond to his criminal 24 || complaint, ordering his detention, issuing his arrest warrant, ordering his commitment for 25 || psychological examination, and denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The judges named 26 || inthe FAC have absolute judicial immunity for these actions. 27 Federal court personnel have absolute quasi-judicial immunity when performing tasks that 28 Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 are “an integral part of the judicial process.” Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 2 1390 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff's claims against federal court personnel are based upon tasks they 3 || performed that are an integral part of the judicial process, such as reassigning a case, failing to 4 || issue summonses, and failing to provide notice of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The 5 federal court personnel defendants have absolute quasi-judicial immunity for these actions. 6 Federal prosecutors acting in the course of their role as advocates are protected by absolute 7 || immunity. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 US. 409, 431 (1976) (“We hold only that in initiating a 8 || prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for 9 || damages under § 1983.”); Heinemann vy. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2013) 10 || (prosecutorial immunity protects a prosecutor for “his decision to initiate a prosecution.”); Herb 11 || Hallman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Nash-Holmes, 169 F.3d 636, 643 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A prosecutor 12 || performing an advocate’s role is an officer of the court entitled to absolute immunity.”). 13 Plaintiffs claims against the U.S. Attorney’s Office employees relate to actions the employees 14 || took in his criminal case, such as instituting the criminal case, filing an indictment, and continuing 3 15 || with the prosecution. The employees of the U.S. Attorney’s Office have absolute immunity for a 16 || these actions. 5 17 To the extent any of Plaintiffs claims against the Federal Defendants are not barred by S 18 absolute immunity, they are nonetheless barred by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity 19 || protects public officials from civil liability so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly 20 || established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 21 Harlow vy. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff does not 22 || allege any conduct by the Federal Defendants or non-Federal public officials that violates clearly 23 established statutory or constitutional rights. Moreover, almost all of the conduct alleged in the 24 || FAC is beyond the one-year statute of limitations for Bivens actions in California. See Chavez v. 25 || INS, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1145 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 26 Finally, the FAC names the following additional defendants who are not Federal 27 Defendants: Google, Inc.; Facebook Inc.; Fedex Corporation; Hewlett Packard Enterprise 28 Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 Company; the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, including several of its sheriffs and deputy 2 || sheriffs; the warden of the Federal Correctional complex North Carolina; the warden of the 3 Federal Medical Center (“FMC”) and several FMC employees; the manager of PACER Support 4 || Center; the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety and its current and former chief; Santa Clara 5 County and several Santa Clara County employees; CoreCivic, Inc.; the current and former 6 || wardens of the Nevada Southern Detention Center (“NSDC”); the warden of Metropolitan 7 || Detention Center, Los Angeles (“MDC-LA”) and other MDC-LA employees; the San Bernardino 8 || County Sheriff's Department and its sheriff; and Taiwan, the Republic of China. FAC □ a5-a210. 9 The FAC fails to state any facts to support a potentially cognizable claim against any of the 10 || defendants who are not Federal Defendants. The claims against these additional defendants are 11 dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Cervantes v. Countrywide 12 || Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and 13 explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). 14 I. Order 3 15 Based upon the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. □□□□□□□□□□□ a 16 || Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Dkt. No. 24) and Second Motion to Vacate the Prefiling Screening 5 17 || Orders (Dkt. No. 30) are TERMINATED. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: April 9, 2020 20 21 EDWARD J. DAVILA 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD ORDER OF DISMISSAL