Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07232/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07232-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KUANG-BAO PAUL OU-YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD LEAVY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:19-cv-07232-EJD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 24, 30

I. Background

On December 20, 2013, Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order declaring Plaintiff to be a 

vexatious litigant and directing pre-filing screening of any complaint filed by Plaintiff involving 

certain statutes and parties. See Vexatious Litigant Order, Case No. 13-cv-04442, ECF 40 (“First 

Screening Order”). Specifically, the First Screening Order requires Plaintiff to obtain leave of 

court before filing any further suits alleging any violations of the federal criminal statutes,

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

Claims Act (“FTCA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., involving parties named in Case No. 

13-4442 or in Plaintiff’s prior cases in this District. 

On November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action against the Honorable Edward Leavy, 

Senior Circuit Judge; the Honorable Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judge; and the Honorable 

Carlos T. Bea, Senior Circuit Judge. Dkt. No. 1 (the “Original Complaint”). The Original 

Complaint was screened and the Clerk of Court determined that the First Screening Order did not 

apply. See Case No. 19-mc-80254-EJD.

Case 5:19-cv-07232-EJD Document 31 Filed 04/09/20 Page 1 of 5
Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On December 5, 2019, Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued an Order Requiring That 

Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young Obtain Leave of Court Before Filing Any Complaint Against Federal 

Judges in Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF, ECF No. 26 (“Second Screening Order”). The Second 

Screening Order states, in pertinent part:

1) Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young must obtain leave of court before filing any complaint

that alleges claims against federal judges, including United States Supreme Court 

justices, federal circuit judges, federal district judges, federal magistrate judges, 

and federal bankruptcy judges;

2) The Clerk of Court shall not accept for filing any complaint alleging claims against 

federal judges until the complaint has been reviewed by a judge and approved for 

filing. The Clerk shall forward any such complaint to the general duty judge for 

pre-filing screening; and

3) This order applies to complaints that Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young seeks to file in this 

district, complaints filed in state court and removed to this district, and complaints 

filed in adversary proceedings in this district’s bankruptcy court.

Second Screening Order, at 15-16. 

On February 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in this action. 

Dkt. No. 15. The FAC adds over one hundred new defendants, including, among others, dozens 

of additional federal judges and federal court personnel, U.S. Department of Justice personnel, 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office personnel, members of the United States Congress, members of 

the current and former White House administrations, and other current or former federal 

employees (the “Federal Defendants”). The FAC also alleges claims against local law 

enforcement offices and a number of large corporations. Plaintiff did not seek or obtain leave of 

court before filing the FAC. 

On March 3, 2020, the Assistant United States Attorney Christopher F. Jeu notified the 

Court of the applicability of the Screening Order. On March 16, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

disqualify the U.S. Attorney’s Office as counsel. Dkt. No. 24. The U.S. Attorney’s Office 

Case 5:19-cv-07232-EJD Document 31 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 5
Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

opposes the motion. Dkt. No. 27.

On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to vacate the First and Second 

Screening Orders. Dkt. No. 26. On April 1, 2020, the Court denied that motion. Dkt. No. 28. On 

April 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a second motion to vacate the First and Second Screening Orders. 

Dkt. No. 30.

II. DISCUSSION 

In the present case, Plaintiff’s FAC alleges claims against numerous federal judges, 

including United States Supreme Court justices, federal circuit judges, federal district judges, and 

federal magistrate judges. The FAC also names some of the defendants named in his prior

lawsuits, including: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Judge Wilken, Judge Koh, Judge Lloyd, 

Attorney General Holder, Assistant United States Attorney James Scharf, former United States 

Attorney Melinda Haag, and federal court employee Tiffany Salinas-Harwell, among others. 

Therefore, both the First and Second Screening Orders apply. Having reviewed the FAC, the 

court finds that it fails to state a potentially cognizable claim against any of the Federal 

Defendants named in the action. 

“Judges are absolutely immune from civil liability for their judicial acts.” Adams v. 

Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability, 165 F. Supp. 3d 911, 921 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (citing 

Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987)); see also 

Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991) (per curiam); Atkinson-Baker & Assoc. v. Kolts, 7 F.3d 

1452, 1454 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Plaintiff’s claims against the judges are based upon 

judicial acts, such as denying his appeal, denying his petition for certiorari, denying motions to 

disqualify, dismissing his misconduct complaints, dismissing his lawsuits, denying his motions to 

intervene, issuing the First and Second Screening Orders, failing to respond to his criminal 

complaint, ordering his detention, issuing his arrest warrant, ordering his commitment for 

psychological examination, and denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The judges named 

in the FAC have absolute judicial immunity for these actions. 

Federal court personnel have absolute quasi-judicial immunity when performing tasks that 

Case 5:19-cv-07232-EJD Document 31 Filed 04/09/20 Page 3 of 5
Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

are “an integral part of the judicial process.” Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 

1390 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff’s claims against federal court personnel are based upon tasks they 

performed that are an integral part of the judicial process, such as reassigning a case, failing to 

issue summonses, and failing to provide notice of a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The 

federal court personnel defendants have absolute quasi-judicial immunity for these actions.

Federal prosecutors acting in the course of their role as advocates are protected by absolute 

immunity. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) (“We hold only that in initiating a 

prosecution and in presenting the State's case, the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for 

damages under § 1983.”); Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 918 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(prosecutorial immunity protects a prosecutor for “his decision to initiate a prosecution.”); Herb 

Hallman Chevrolet, Inc. v. Nash-Holmes, 169 F.3d 636, 643 (9th Cir. 1999) (“A prosecutor 

performing an advocate’s role is an officer of the court entitled to absolute immunity.”). 

Plaintiff’s claims against the U.S. Attorney’s Office employees relate to actions the employees 

took in his criminal case, such as instituting the criminal case, filing an indictment, and continuing 

with the prosecution. The employees of the U.S. Attorney’s Office have absolute immunity for 

these actions. 

To the extent any of Plaintiff’s claims against the Federal Defendants are not barred by 

absolute immunity, they are nonetheless barred by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity 

protects public officials from civil liability so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly 

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff does not 

allege any conduct by the Federal Defendants or non-Federal public officials that violates clearly 

established statutory or constitutional rights. Moreover, almost all of the conduct alleged in the 

FAC is beyond the one-year statute of limitations for Bivens actions in California. See Chavez v. 

INS, 17 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1145 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 

Finally, the FAC names the following additional defendants who are not Federal 

Defendants: Google, Inc.; Facebook Inc.; Fedex Corporation; Hewlett Packard Enterprise 

Case 5:19-cv-07232-EJD Document 31 Filed 04/09/20 Page 4 of 5
Case No.: 5:19-cv-07232-EJD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Company; the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, including several of its sheriffs and deputy 

sheriffs; the warden of the Federal Correctional complex North Carolina; the warden of the 

Federal Medical Center (“FMC”) and several FMC employees; the manager of PACER Support 

Center; the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety and its current and former chief; Santa Clara 

County and several Santa Clara County employees; CoreCivic, Inc.; the current and former 

wardens of the Nevada Southern Detention Center (“NSDC”); the warden of Metropolitan 

Detention Center, Los Angeles (“MDC-LA”) and other MDC-LA employees; the San Bernardino 

County Sheriff’s Department and its sheriff; and Taiwan, the Republic of China. FAC ¶¶ a5-a210. 

The FAC fails to state any facts to support a potentially cognizable claim against any of the 

defendants who are not Federal Defendants. The claims against these additional defendants are 

dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. Cervantes v. Countrywide 

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and 

explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

III. Order

Based upon the foregoing, this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Dkt. No. 24) and Second Motion to Vacate the Prefiling Screening 

Orders (Dkt. No. 30) are TERMINATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07232-EJD Document 31 Filed 04/09/20 Page 5 of 5