Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-mc-80033/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-mc-80033-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-mc-80033 EJD

ORDER DENYING PROPOSED INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO INTERVENE, DISQUALIFY 

JUDGE, VACATE JUDGMENT, AND DISMISS

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

IN RE

KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG,

Proposed Intervenor.

Case No. 5:15-mc-80033 EJD 

ORDER DENYING PROPOSED

INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO 

INTERVENE, DISQUALIFY JUDGE, 

VACATE JUDGMENT, AND DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Proposed Intervenor Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young (“Ou-Young”) is subject to a pre-filing 

order which requires him to obtain leave of court before initiating new litigation. See Docket Item 

No. 40 in Case No. 3:13-cv-04442 EMC. In an apparent effort to circumvent this order, OuYoung has filed a “Motion to Intervene, Motion to Disqualify Judge, Motion to Vacate Judgment, 

and Motion to Dismiss” directed at a criminal action currently pending in this district, namely 

United States v. Harmon, Case No. 5:08-cr-00938 LHK. See Docket Item No. 1. This motion 

was docketed by the Clerk within the miscellaneous case number captioned above and referred to 

the undersigned for general duty review upon the recusal of Judge Lucy H. Koh. See Docket Item 

Nos. 2, 3. 

The court notes that Ou-Young seeks to intervene in a criminal prosecution to which he is 

not a party and in which he has no specified interest. Under these circumstances, intervention is 

Case 5:15-mc-80033-EJD Document 4 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:15-mc-80033 EJD

ORDER DENYING PROPOSED INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO INTERVENE, DISQUALIFY 

JUDGE, VACATE JUDGMENT, AND DISMISS

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

improper because “a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority 

when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” Linda R. S. v. Richard 

D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). Indeed, “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in 

the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Id. Accordingly, since there is no legal basis to 

support such requests within the criminal action referenced by Ou-Young, the Motion to 

Intervene, Disqualify Judge, Vacate Judgment and Dismiss (Docket Item No. 1) is DENIED. OuYoung shall file no further motions or other filings within or directed at Case No. 5:08-cr-00938 

LHK. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-mc-80033-EJD Document 4 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2