Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02748/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02748-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE BINSHYANG SUONG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 SHYUE YIH CHANG AND DOES 1-5,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02748 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

AND ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY HE SHOULD

NOT BE DECLARED A VEXATIOUS

LITIGANT

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

This action was reassigned to this Court as related to three previous actions filed by this

plaintiff against the same foreign defendant.

A court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without

prepayment of fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is

unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff has

submitted the required documentation, and it is evident from his application that his assets

and income are insufficient to enable plaintiff to prosecute the action.

Viewing plaintiff’s application in isolation, it appears that he should be allowed to

proceed IFP. A court is under a continuing duty, however, to dismiss a case whenever it

determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-- (iii).
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Plaintiff’s action is frivolous. It is identical to three previous actions filed by plaintiff

and dismissed by this Court: 05-3041 CRB, 05-3813 CRB, and 06-1885 CRB. Plaintiff is an

umemployed physician. He alleges that while he was working as an intern at Taipei

Veterans General Hospital in Taiwan in the 1980’s he was treated by defendant, a surgeon,

for a snoring problem. Plaintiff claims that defendant intentionally created a severe upper

airway obstruction and that this intentional conduct caused plaintiff to become permanently

disabled. He alleges that defendant engaged in such “intentional mayhem” because

defendant resented plaintiff’s American medical education, advanced degrees and United

States citizenship.

The Court dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint in 05-3041 because plaintiff did not

identify under what law or statute he made his claims. The Court also held that it did not

have venue of plaintiff’s claims. The Court also found that plaintiff’s complaint

demonstrated that the Court did not have personal jurisdiction of defendant, a Taiwan

surgeon; in particular, the complaint’s jurisdictional allegations did not satisfy either general

or specific jurisdiction. For all these reasons, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint

without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s second complaint, 05-3813, identified the statute pursuant to which he

brought his claim: the Antiterrorism Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. section 2333. The Court also

dismissed that action and entered judgment. The Court held that it did not have personal

jurisdiction of defendant, a physician residing in Taiwan, and also held that the statute did

not apply to the facts alleged by plaintiff as a matter of law.

Plaintiff filed another action, entitled “Notice of Declination and Objection Including

Complaint.” The Court dismissed this complaint, too, with prejudice, for all the reasons

stated in the Court’s order dismissing 05-3813 CRB. The Court specifically advised plaintiff

that if he disagrees with this Court’s ruling, he may appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals, but he may not continue to file the same action in this Court.

Despite the Court’s admonishment, plaintiff has filed the same complaint for the

fourth time. In an apparent attempt to keep the Court from relating this action to the
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

previously dismissed actions, he changed the spelling of his last name by one letter. Whereas

the previous actions were filed by Leslie Binshyang Song, this action is filed by Leslie

Binshyang Suong. The exhibits to this complaint, which are identical to the exhibits attached

to his three previous complaints, refer to plaintiff as Leslie Binshyang Song. He also

misrepresents on his application to proceed in forma pauperis that this action does not raise

the same claims as in any previous action.

As the Court previously dismissed the claims raised in this action with prejudice, this

action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. section 1651, vests federal courts with the discretion to

enjoin certain litigants from engaging in wasteful litigation. Clinton v. United States, 297

F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1961). The courts may exercise their discretion to prevent litigants from

subjecting others to “repeated, baseless and vexatious suits at law on some particular subject

matter.” Id. at 901 (quoting First State Bank v. Chicago R.I. & P.R. Co., 63 F.2d 585 (8th

Cir. 1933)). Under the statute, a court may restrict litigants with abusive and lengthy

histories from submitting future filing of actions or papers provided that it: (1) gives the

litigant an opportunity to oppose the order before it is entered; (2) creates an adequate record

for review; (3) makes substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the

litigant’s actions; and (4) drafts a sufficiently detailed order. De Long v. Hennessey, 912

F.2d 1144, 1145-48 (9th Cir. 1990).

Plaintiff’s conduct demonstrates that he will continue to file the same dismissed action

unless enjoined from doing so. He has filed the same complaint four times, despite the

Court’s dismissal of the claims with prejudice, and despite the Court’s expressed warning to

plaintiff that he cannot keep filing the same complaint. Instead of appealing the Court’s

order of dismissal, he filed the same complaint again, this time changing the spelling in his

last name and misrepresenting in his in forma pauperis application that this action is not

related to any previously-filed actions. 

Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to show cause why the Court should not declare him

a vexatious litigant and enjoin him from filing any actions in the United States District Court
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\2748\ordertoshowcause.wpd 4

for the Northern District of California against Shyue Yih Chang. Plaintiff must explain in

writing, on or before May 26, 2006, why his repeated filing of the same complaint is not

frivolous and why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. The Court will take the

matter under submission at that time. In the meantime, this action is DISMISSED with

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE