Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07000/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07000-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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 P. OU-YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE E. STONE, Santa Clara 

County Assessor; JEANETTE TONINI, 

Senior Assessment Clerk; EDWARD J. 

DAVILA, District Judge; and COUNTY OF 

SANTA CLARA, 

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF 

ORDER REQUIRING THAT 

KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG OBTAIN 

LEAVE OF COURT BEFORE FILING 

ANY COMPLAINT AGAINST 

FEDERAL JUDGES

On December 20, 2013, District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order declaring Plaintiff 

Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young 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. In the six years following Judge Chen’s issuance of the 

Vexatious Litigant Order, Plaintiff has filed more than two dozen meritless actions in this district, 

many asserting claims against federal judges based on their rulings. 

Plaintiff also filed the present action in state court, naming District Judge Edward J. Davila 

as a defendant along with the County of Santa Clara and two County employees. See Notice of 

Removal Exh. 4 (Complaint), ECF 1-4. Following removal of the action to this district, the Court 

issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed as to Judge Davila based 

on judicial immunity, and why the pre-filing screening requirement applicable to Plaintiff should 

not be expanded to include claims against federal judges. See OSC, ECF 15. Plaintiff timely 

responded to the Order to Show Cause. See Pl.’s Response to OSC, ECF 22. 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 16
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

The Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Davila in a separate order. See

Dismissal Order, ECF 25. The present order addresses the propriety of issuing an order requiring 

pre-filing review of Plaintiff’s future complaints against federal judges. For the reasons discussed 

below, the Court finds that such an order is warranted. The Court therefore ORDERS that KuangBao P. Ou-Young must obtain leave of court before filing any complaint against federal judges.

 I. BACKGROUND

Judge Chen’s Vexatious Litigant Order

As noted above, Judge Chen issued a Vexatious Litigant Order regarding Plaintiff in 2013. 

See Vexatious Litigant Order, Case No. 13-cv-04442, ECF 40. In that order, Judge Chen 

discussed five civil cases that Plaintiff had filed in this district against federal judges, federal 

agencies and employees, and others, as well as a misconduct complaint that Plaintiff had filed 

against a federal judge. See id. Judge Chen concluded that although the number of Plaintiff’s 

filings was not as great as in other vexatious litigant cases, “the patently meritless nature of his 

filings” warranted issuance of a pre-filing review order. Id. at 13. Notably, Plaintiff persisted in 

suing for violations of federal criminal statutes despite being advised repeatedly that the statutes 

do not provide a private right of action. See id. Judge Chen issued an order that was narrowly 

tailored to require that “Plaintiff must 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 FTCA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., involving parties 

that he named in the current case, or Ou-Young I, Ou-Young II, Ou-Young III, and Ou-Young IV, 

previously filed in this Court.” Id. at 16-17.

Plaintiff’s Filings Since Judge Chen’s Order

Since the Vexatious Litigant Order issued, Plaintiff has submitted twenty-five complaints 

that have been subject to pre-filing review. See Case Nos. 14-mc-80017-RMW; 14-mc-80018-RS; 

14-mc-80028-JSW;14-mc-80029-JSW; 14-mc-80030-JSW; 14-mc-80174-BLF; 14-mc-80214-

EJD; 14-mc-80215-EJD; 14-mc-80306-LHK; 14-mc-80332-BLF; 14-mc-80335-BLF; 14-mc80342-WHA; 14-mc-80343-WHA; 15-mc-80031-YGR; 15-mc-80033-EJD; 15-mc-80149-BLF; 

15-mc-80151-EJD; 15-mc-80172-EJD; 15-mc-80180-VC; 15-mc-80185-VC; 15-mc-80192-EJD; 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 16
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

15-mc-80197-LHK; 15-mc-80235-EJD; 15-mc-80212-BLF; 19-mc-80254-EJD; 19-mc-80255-

EJD. As discussed in more detail below, many of those complaints asserted claims against federal 

judges.

During that same period, Plaintiff filed multiple motions to intervene, disqualify judges, 

and vacate orders in criminal and civil actions to which he was not a party. See, e.g., Case Nos. 

14-cr-00196-CRB, ECF 344 (motion to intervene in criminal proceeding); 14-cv-05142-LHK, 

ECF 95 (motion to intervene, to disqualify the assigned judge, to vacate a court order, and for 

summary judgment); Case No. 17-cv-00574-WHO, ECF 84 (motion to intervene). 

All of the motions to intervene, disqualify, and the like were denied. See Case Nos. 14-cr00196-CRB, ECF 345 (denying motion to intervene); 14-cv-05142-LHK, ECF 97 (denying 

motion to intervene, to disqualify the assigned judge, to vacate a court order, and for summary 

judgment); Case No. 17-cv-00574-WHO, ECF 85 (denying motion to intervene). Plaintiff also 

was denied leave to file all but two of the complaints listed above, on the basis that they asserted 

claims involving statutes and parties specified in Judge Chen’s Vexatious Litigant Order and were 

without merit.

Plaintiff’s 2019 Cases

As to the two most recent complaints screened in 2019, however, leave to file was granted 

on the basis that the claims asserted therein fell outside the scope of Judge Chen’s order. One 

complaint asserts claims against Ninth Circuit Judges Edward Leavy, Consuelo M. Callahan, and 

Carlos T. Bea. See Case No. 19-cv-07232-EJD (screened in Case No. 19-mc-80254-EJD). The 

judge assigned to that case has not yet had occasion to determine whether the complaint states a

viable claim. That case is proceeding.

The second complaint as to which leave to file was granted asserts claims against the 

County of Santa Clara and County employees. See Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF (screened in Case 

No. 19-mc-80255-EJD). That action is proceeding. 

Plaintiff filed a third complaint in this district in 2019 that does not appear to have been 

flagged for pre-filing review by the Clerk’s Office. See Case No. 19-cv-03049-EJD. A civil case 

was opened based on the complaint, and Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint. 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 3 of 16
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

The district court assigned to the case found that Plaintiff’s claims against federal district judges, 

circuit judges, United States Supreme Court justices, and federal officials and employees were 

without merit and dismissed the case with prejudice. See id. 

Plaintiff’s fourth 2019 complaint, which commenced the present action, was filed in state 

court and removed to this district. See Notice of Removal, ECF 1. The removal complaint was 

not flagged for screening by the Clerk’s Office. The complaint alleges claims against Judge 

Davila, the County of Santa Clara, and Santa Clara employees. As noted above, Plaintiffs’ claims 

against Judge Davila have been dismissed. See Dismissal Order, ECF 25. 

The United States of America, appearing in this action as amicus curiae, requests that the 

Court issue an order requiring pre-filing review of all claims against federal judges. See United 

States’ Br. at 6, ECF 6-1. The United States argues that such an order is warranted because 

Plaintiff has a documented propensity to sue federal judges when he does not like their decisions, 

and the current Vexatious Litigant Order does not cover Plaintiff’s recent suits against federal 

judges. See id. Plaintiff argues that expansion of the screening order would deprive him of his 

Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. See Pl.’s Response to OSC, ECF 22.

 II. LEGAL STANDARD

“The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides district courts with the inherent power 

to enter pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 

F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). “Restricting access to the courts is, however, a serious matter.” 

Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014). “[T]he right of 

access to the courts is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution,” and “[p]rofligate use of 

pre-filing orders could infringe this important right.” Id. at 1061-62 (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Thus, “pre-filing orders should rarely be filed,” and only when certain 

requirements are met. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990).

“Nevertheless, ‘[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one 

person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious 

claims of other litigants.’” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1148). A 

district court therefore has discretion to restrict a litigant’s future filings by requiring leave of 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 4 of 16
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

court. See De Long, 912 F.2d at 1146-47. 

“When district courts seek to impose pre-filing restrictions, they must: (1) give litigants 

notice and ‘an opportunity to oppose the order before it [is] entered’; (2) compile an adequate 

record for appellate review, including ‘a listing of all the cases and motions that led the district 

court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed’; (3) make substantive findings of 

frivolousness or harassment; and (4) tailor the order narrowly so as ‘to closely fit the specific vice 

encountered.’” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062 (quoting De Long, 912 F.2d at 1147-48). 

“The first and second of these requirements are procedural,” while the third and fourth 

requirements are “substantive considerations” helpful to defining who is a vexatious litigant and 

fashioning an appropriate remedy. Id. at 1062. 

 III. DISCUSSION

A. Notice and Opportunity to Oppose

The first requirement is satisfied where the litigant is given notice that the court is 

considering a pre-filing screening order and an opportunity to oppose such order before it issues. 

See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062. A hearing is not required. See Ou-Young v. Roberts, 

No. C-13-4442 EMC, 2013 WL 6732118, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013) (collecting cases).

The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff should not be subject to pre-filing 

review of claims against federal judges. See Order to Show Cause at 2, ECF 15. Plaintiff 

responded to the Order to Show Cause and argued against imposition of such pre-filing review. 

See Pl.’s Response to OSC at 2-3, ECF 22. Consequently, the record is clear that Plaintiff both 

received notice and actually opposed issuance of an order requiring pre-filing screening of claims 

against federal judges.

B. Adequate Record for Review

“An adequate record for review should include a listing of all the cases and motions that 

led the district court to conclude that a vexatious litigant order was needed.” De Long, 912 F.2d at 

1147. “At the least, the record needs to show, in some manner, that the litigant’s activities were 

numerous or abusive.” Id.

As noted in the Background section, above, Plaintiff has filed or attempted to file dozens 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 5 of 16
6

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

of actions in this district since Judge Chen issued his Vexatious Litigant Order. Approximately 

half of those actions contain claims against federal judges, as summarized below:

(1) Case No. 14-mc-80017-RMW: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Chief Justice John G. 

Roberts, Jr.; Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken; District Judge Edward M. Chen; District Judge 

Lucy H. Koh; Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd; Deputy Clerk Martha P. Brown; Deputy Clerk 

Tiffany Salinas-Harwell; Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.; United States Attorney Melinda 

Haag; Assistant United States Attorney Claire T. Cormier; and Assistant United States Attorney 

James A. Scharf. Plaintiff asserted 131 claims for fabrication, intimidation, conspiracy, and 

unspecified torts based on rulings made by the defendant judges, clerical work done by the 

defendant Clerk’s Office staff, and litigation conduct of the defendant attorneys in multiple cases 

in which adverse rulings were made against Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that 

the defendants “engaged in fabrication of court records, intimidation, and conspiracy”; referral of 

the defendants for criminal prosecution; removal of certain judges from office; and monetary 

damages against each defendant in amounts ranging from $4,000,000 to $28,000,000. Leave to 

file the complaint was denied on January 30, 2014.

(2) Case No. 14-mc-80018-RS: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Chief Justice John G. 

Roberts, Jr.; Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken; District Judge Edward M. Chen; District Judge 

Lucy H. Koh; Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd; Deputy Clerk Martha P. Brown; Deputy Clerk 

Tiffany Salinas-Harwell; Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.; United States Attorney Melinda 

Haag; Assistant United States Attorney Claire T. Cormier; and Assistant United States Attorney 

James A. Scharf. Plaintiff refiled the identical claims, against the identical defendants, set forth in 

Complaint (1), above. Leave to file the complaint was denied on February 7, 2014.

(3) Case No. 14-mc-80028-JSW: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Chief Justice John G. 

Roberts, Jr.; Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken; District Judge Edward M. Chen; District Judge 

Lucy H. Koh; Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd; Deputy Clerk Martha P. Brown; Deputy Clerk 

Tiffany Salinas-Harwell; Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.; United States Attorney Melinda 

Haag; Assistant United States Attorney Claire T. Cormier; and Assistant United States Attorney 

James A. Scharf. Plaintiff refiled the identical claims, against the identical defendants, set forth in 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 6 of 16
7

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

Complaints (1) and (2), above. Leave to file the complaint was denied on March 26, 2014.

(4) Case No. 14-mc-80029-JSW: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Chief Justice John G. 

Roberts, Jr.; and District Judge Edward M. Chen. Plaintiff asserted a single claim for violation of 

the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment based on Judge Chen’s issuance of the Vexatious 

Litigant Order. Plaintiff did not allege any conduct on the part of Chief Justice Roberts. Leave to 

file the complaint was denied on July 30, 2015.

(5) Case No. 14-mc-80030-JSW: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Chief Justice John G. 

Roberts, Jr.; District Judge Ronald M. Whyte; District Judge Edward M. Chen; Supervisor Snooki 

R. Puli; Supervisor Odile Hansen; Supervisor Simone Voltz; and Deputy Clerk Cynthia Lenahan. 

Plaintiff asserted a single claim for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment 

based on Judge Chen’s Vexatious Litigant Order and the actions of the other defendants in 

enforcing that order. Leave to file the complaint was denied on March 26, 2014.

(6) Case No. 14-mc-80174-BLF: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Chief Justice John G. 

Roberts, Jr.; Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken; District Judge Ronald M. Whyte; District 

Judge Jeffrey S. White; District Judge Edward M. Chen; District Judge Lucy H. Koh; District 

Judge Richard Seeborg; Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd; Clerk of Court Richard W. Wieking; 

Supervisor Snooki R. Puli; Supervisor Simone Voltz; Supervisor Odile Hansen; Deputy Clerk

Cynthia Lenahan; Deputy Clerk Tiffany Salinas-Harwell; Deputy Clerk Martha P. Brown; Deputy 

Clerk Gordana Macic; Deputy Clerk Betty Walton; Deputy Clerk Charles Adams; Attorney 

General Eric H. Holder, Jr.; United States Attorney Melinda Haag; Assistant United States 

Attorney Claire T. Cormier; Assistant United States Attorney James A. Scharf, USMS Director 

Stacia Hylton; USM Donald M. O’Keefe; Supervisory USM Mark Harwell; Postmaster General 

Patrick R. Donahoe; Commissioner of Fiscal Service David A. Lebryk; David J. Yang; Judge 

Teresa Guerrero-Daley; and San Jose Police Department. Plaintiff asserted 251 claims for 

fabrication, intimidation, conspiracy, and unspecified torts based on judicial rulings and acts of 

federal officials and employees within the scope of their positions. Leave to file the complaint 

was denied on July 8, 2014.

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 7 of 16
8

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

(7) Case No. 14-mc-80214-EJD: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. District Judge Charles 

R. Breyer. Plaintiff asserted a single claim for interference based on Judge Breyer’s denial of 

Plaintiff’s motion to intervene in a criminal case. Leave to file the complaint was denied on July 

29, 2014.

(8) Case No. 14-mc-80215-EJD: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. District Judge Beth L. 

Freeman. Plaintiff asserted a single claim of interference based on Judge Freeman’s denial of 

leave to file a prior action. Leave to file the complaint was denied on July 29, 2014.

(9) Case No. 14-mc-80306-LHK: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Chief Justice John G. 

Roberts, Jr.; Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken; District Judge D. Lowell Jensen; District 

Judge Charles R. Breyer; District Judge Ronald M. Whyte; District Judge Jeffrey S. White; 

District Judge Edward M. Chen; District Judge Lucy H. Koh; District Judge Richard Seeborg; 

District Judge Edward J. Davila; District Judge Beth Labson Freeman; Magistrate Judge Howard 

R. Lloyd; Clerk of Court Richard W. Wieking; Deputy Clerk-in-Charge Keely Kirkpatrick; 

Supervisor Snooki R. Puli; Supervisor Simone Voltz; Supervisor Odile Hansen; Deputy Clerk 

Cynthia Lenahan; Deputy Clerk Martha P. Brown; Deputy Clerk Tiffany Salinas-Harwell; Deputy 

Clerk Gordana Macic; Deputy Clerk Betty Walton; Deputy Clerk Barbara Espinoza; Deputy 

Clerk Charles Adams; Deputy Clerk Cita Escolano; Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.; United 

States Attorney Melinda Haag; Assistant United States Attorney Claire T. Cormier; Assistant 

United States Attorney James A. Scharf; Assistant United States Attorney William Frentzen; 

Assistant United States Attorney Susan E. Badger; Assistant United States Attorney S. Waqar 

Hasib; Assistant United States Attorney Kirstin M. Ault; Assistant United States Attorney Kyle F. 

Waldinger; Assistant United States Attorney Adam A. Reeves; Assistant United States Attorney 

Jason Dean Linder; Assistant United States Attorney Ryan James Rohlfsen; USMS Director Stacia 

Hylton; USM Donald M. O’Keefe; Supervisory USM Mark Harwell; USM John Dole 1; USM 

John Dole 2; USM John Dole 3; Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe; Secretary of Treasury 

Jacob L. Lew; Commissioner of Fiscal Service David A. Lebryk; Continental Service Group, Inc.;

David J. Yang; Judge Teresa Guerrero-Daley; and San Jose Police Department. Plaintiff asserted 

316 claims for fabrication, intimidation, conspiracy, and unspecified torts. Leave to file the 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 8 of 16
9

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

complaint was denied on November 14, 2014.

(10) Case No. 14-mc-80342-WHA: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Chief Justice John G. 

Roberts, Jr.; Chief District Judge Claudia Wilken; District Judge D. Lowell Jensen; District 

Judge Charles R. Breyer; District Judge Ronald M. Whyte; District Judge Jeffrey S. White; 

District Judge Edward M. Chen; District Judge Lucy H. Koh; District Judge Richard Seeborg; 

District Judge Edward J. Davila; District Judge Beth Labson Freeman; Magistrate Judge Howard 

R. Lloyd; Clerk of Court Richard W. Wieking; Deputy Clerk-in-Charge Keely Kirkpatrick; 

Supervisor Snooki R. Puli; Supervisor Simone Voltz; Supervisor Odile Hansen; Deputy Clerk 

Cynthia Lenahan; Deputy Clerk Martha P. Brown; Deputy Clerk Tiffany Salinas-Harwell; Deputy 

Clerk Gordana Macic; Deputy Clerk Betty Walton; Deputy Clerk Barbara Espinoza; Deputy 

Clerk Charles Adams; Deputy Clerk Cita Escolano; Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.; United 

States Attorney Melinda Haag; Assistant United States Attorney Claire T. Cormier; Assistant 

United States Attorney James A. Scharf; Assistant United States Attorney William Frentzen; 

Assistant United States Attorney Susan E. Badger; Assistant United States Attorney S. Waqar 

Hasib; Assistant United States Attorney Kirstin M. Ault; Assistant United States Attorney Kyle F. 

Waldinger; Assistant United States Attorney Adam A. Reeves; Assistant United States Attorney 

Jason Dean Linder; Assistant United States Attorney Ryan James Rohlfsen; USMS Director Stacia 

Hylton; USM Donald M. O’Keefe; Supervisory USM Mark Harwell; USM John Dole 1; USM 

John Dole 2; USM John Dole 3; Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe; Secretary of Treasury 

Jacob L. Lew; Commissioner of Fiscal Service David A. Lebryk; Continental Service Group, Inc.; 

David J. Yang; Judge Teresa Guerrero-Daley; and San Jose Police Department. Plaintiff refiled 

the identical claims, against the identical defendants, set forth in Complaint (9), above. Leave to 

file the complaint was denied on December 18, 2014.

(11) Case No. 15-mc-80180-VC: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. President Barack Hussein 

Obama, II; District Judge Richard G. Kopf; District Judge D. Lowell Jensen; District Judge 

Ronald M. Whyte; District Judge Charles R. Breyer; District Judge Jeffrey S. White; District 

Judge Edward M. Chen; District Judge Beth L. Freeman; District Judge James Donato; Attorney 

General Loretta Lynch; Former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.; U.S. Deputy Attorney 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 9 of 16
10

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

General Sally Quillian Yates; Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole; United 

States Attorney Melinda Haag; USMS Director Stacia Hylton; USM Donald M. O’Keefe; 

Assistant United States Attorney Claire T. Cormier; Supervisory USM Mark Harwell; Deputy 

Clerk Gordana Macic; Deputy Clerk Betty Walton; Deputy Clerk Anna Sprinkles; and Deputy 

Clerk Cita Escolano. Plaintiff asserted numerous claims relating to the dismissal of his prior 

actions. Leave to file the complaint was denied on June 26, 2015.

(12) Case No. 15-mc-80185-VC: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. President Barack Hussein 

Obama, II; District Judge Richard G. Kopf; District Judge D. Lowell Jensen; District Judge 

Ronald M. Whyte; District Judge Charles R. Breyer; District Judge Jeffrey S. White; District 

Judge Edward M. Chen; District Judge Beth L. Freeman; District Judge James Donato; Attorney 

General Loretta Lynch; Former Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.; U.S. Deputy Attorney 

General Sally Quillian Yates; Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole; United 

States Attorney Melinda Haag; USMS Director Stacia Hylton; USM Donald M. O’Keefe; 

Assistant United States Attorney Claire T. Cormier; Supervisory USM Mark Harwell; Deputy 

Clerk Gordana Macic; Deputy Clerk Betty Walton; Deputy Clerk Anna Sprinkles; and Deputy 

Clerk Cita Escolano. Plaintiff asserted the same claims, against the same defendants, as set forth 

in Complaint (11), above. Leave to file the complaint was denied on June 29, 2015.

(13) Case No. 19-cv-07232-EJD (screened in Case No. 19-mc-80254-EJD): Kuang-Bao 

Paul Ou-Young v. Edward Leavy, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit; Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit; and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Plaintiff has asserted a single claim for Civil Rights Violation based on the defendants’ dismissal 

of his appeal with respect to rulings in a criminal case against Plaintiff, United States v. Kuang 

Bao Ou-Young, Case No. 17-cr-00263. Plaintiff was granted leave to file the complaint after 

screening, on the basis that the claims fall outside the scope of Judge Chen’s Vexatious Litigant 

Order. The case is proceeding. The district judge assigned to the case has not yet had occasion to 

consider the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 10 of 16
11

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

(14) Case No. 19-cv-03049-EJD: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Edward Leavy, Senior 

Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, et al.1 Plaintiff asserted 

claims against eight current and former United States Supreme Court justices; seventeen current 

and former federal circuit judges; forty-seven current and former federal district judges; thirteen 

current and former magistrate judges; fourteen federal court employees; twenty-seven other 

federal employees and officials; and twenty-nine federal prison employees. Plaintiff alleged that 

defendants violated his civil rights. It appears that the Clerk’s Office did not flag this action for 

pre-filing screening. All claims have been dismissed as without merit and the action has been 

dismissed with prejudice.

(15) Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF: Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young v. Lawrence E. Stone, Santa 

Clara County Assessor; Jeanette Tonini, Senior Assessment Clerk; Edward J. Davila, District 

Judge; and County of Santa Clara. The complaint in this action was filed in state court, and when 

it was removed to federal district court it was not flagged for screening by the Clerk’s Office. The 

claims against Judge Davila have been dismissed as barred by judicial immunity. The claims 

against the County defendants are proceeding.

This record is adequate to demonstrate the scope of Plaintiff’s attempts to sue federal 

judges.

C. Substantive Findings

Before a district court issues a pre-filing review order, it must make a substantive finding 

that the litigant’s actions have been either frivolous or harassing. See Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 

F.3d at 1064. “To determine whether the litigation is frivolous, district courts must look at both 

the number and content of the filings as indicia of the frivolousness of the litigant’s claims.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The plaintiff’s claims must not only be 

numerous, but also be patently without merit.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

As an alternative to frivolousness, the district court may make a finding that the litigant has 

engaged in a pattern of harassment. See id. Filing particular types of actions repetitiously is 

 

1 The defendants sued in this case are too numerous to list in full here.

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 11 of 16
12

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

insufficient; the court must discern whether the repetitive filing was motivated by an intent to 

harass the defendant or the court. See id. “Finally, courts should consider whether other, less 

restrictive options, are adequate to protect the court and parties.” Id. 

The Ninth Circuit has identified five factors that provide “a helpful framework” for 

determining whether a party is vexatious and whether a pre-filing order is warranted: “(1) the 

litigant’s history of litigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing or 

duplicative lawsuits; (2) the litigant’s motive in pursuing the litigation, e.g., does the litigant have 

an objective good faith expectation of prevailing?; (3) whether the litigant is represented by 

counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has posed an 

unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other sanctions would be 

adequate to protect the courts and other parties.” Ringgold-Lockhart, 761 F.3d at 1062 (citation 

omitted). 

The first factor – the history of litigation and whether it entailed vexatious, harassing, or 

duplicative lawsuits – strongly favors a pre-filing screening order for suits against federal judges. 

Plaintiff has filed or attempted to file at least fourteen actions against federal judges following 

Judge Chen’s issuance of his Vexatious Litigant Order. Plaintiff also has filed at least one state 

court action against Judge Davila, which was removed to this Court. All of Plaintiff’s claims 

against federal judges have been found to be without merit, with the exception of his claims in 

Case No. 19-cv-07232-EJD, which have not yet been addressed substantively by the court.

Plaintiff’s attempts to sue federal judges generally follow on the heels of, and are in 

response to, those judges’ rulings against Plaintiff. For example, on January 30, 2014, Judge 

Ronald M. Whyte denied Plaintiff leave to file a complaint against federal judges and employees. 

See Case No. 14-mc-80017-RMW, ECF 4. Approximately one week later, on February 6, 2014, 

Plaintiff attempted to sue Judge Whyte for denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment. See

Case No. 14-mc-80030-JSW, ECF 1. On July 8, 2014, Judge Charles R. Breyer denied Plaintiff’s 

motion to intervene in a criminal action. See Case No. 14-cr-00196-CRB, ECF 345. 

Approximately one week later, on July 17, 2014, Plaintiff attempted to file a complaint against 

Judge Breyer for “Interference,” stemming from Judge Breyer’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion to 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 12 of 16
13

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

intervene. See Case No. 14-mc-80214-EJD, ECF 1. On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a 

complaint that was assigned to Judge Davila for screening. See Case No. 19-mc-80255-EJD. 

Before Judge Davila had an opportunity to rule, and apparently in anticipation of an adverse 

ruling, Plaintiff filed the present action against Judge Davila in the Santa Clara County Superior 

Court. See ECF 1, Notice of Removal. As noted above, this Court has dismissed Plaintiff’s 

claims against Judge Davila on the basis of judicial immunity. See ECF 25.

Even after the court has dismissed such suits, Plaintiff persists in reasserting the same 

claims against the same judges based upon the same judicial acts. See, e.g., Case No. 14-mc80017-RMW, ECF 4 (indicating that all of Plaintiff’s claims were subject to dismissal on grounds 

that had been explained to him in a prior order, including immunity, lack of private right of action 

under criminal statutes, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Case No. 14-mc-80174-

BLF, ECF 2 (“As explained in the Vexatious Litigant Order, this Court lacks jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff’s claims against judges, prosecutors, and court staff, because they are immune from 

suit.”). On August 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a lengthy pleading asserting claims against almost 

every judge in this district, judges in other districts, circuit court judges, United States Supreme 

Court justices, and federal officials and employees. See Case No. 19-cv-03049-EJD, ECF 10. In 

that pleading, Plaintiff made clear that he was continuing to sue judges based on judicial acts 

dating back to 2012. He specifically referenced Judge Whyte’s January 2014 order denying leave 

to file a complaint in Case No. 14-mc-80017-RMW, Judge Breyer’s July 2014 order denying 

leave to intervene in Case No. 14-cr-00196-CRB, and many other judicial acts that were the 

subject of unsuccessful prior lawsuits in this district. Those claims were dismissed with prejudice 

on October 9, 2019. See Case No. 19-cv-03049-EJD, ECF 36.

The second factor – the litigant’s motive in pursuing litigation – also weighs in favor of a

pre-filing screening order for suits against federal judges. The Court cannot conceive of any 

legitimate basis for Plaintiff’s insistence in filings suit against judges despite having been advised 

in numerous court orders that such claims are not viable. Plaintiff’s conduct in filing suit against 

judges who issue adverse rulings against him, and in particular his assertion of the same claims 

over and over, strongly suggests a bad faith motive. After reviewing all of the orders issued by 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 13 of 16
14

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

judges in this district explaining that Plaintiff cannot prevail on such claims, the Court can only 

conclude that Plaintiff’s purpose is to harass federal judges through litigation.

The third factor inquires whether Plaintiff is represented by counsel. He is not, and in fact 

it would be surprising if a sworn officer of the court were to participate in the meritless and 

harassing litigation described herein.

The fourth factor – whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or has 

posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel – strongly favors the contemplated 

pre-filing screening order. Plaintiff’s repeated assertion of claims against federal judges embodies 

the “[f]lagrant abuse of the judicial process” described by the Ninth Circuit that “cannot be 

tolerated because it enables one person to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be 

used to consider the meritorious claims of other litigants.” Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). While Plaintiff’s earlier complaints against federal judges 

were screened pursuant to Judge Chen’s Vexatious Litigant Order, Plaintiff’s most recent 

complaints have been opened as civil actions, either because the Clerk’s Office did not flag them 

for screening or because they fell outside the scope of Judge Chen’s order. Addressing those 

complaints wastes judicial resources that better could be devoted to other cases.

Finally, the fifth factor asks whether other, less restrictive options, would be adequate. As 

noted, the Vexatious Litigant Order currently in place has not barred the filing of Plaintiff’s most 

recent claims against federal judges. Requiring pre-filing review of all claims against federal 

judges would prevent the waste of judicial resources that must be expended when a civil suit is 

litigated. The Court has considered whether such waste could be avoided by imposition of a 

monetary sanction against Plaintiff each time he litigates frivolous or harassing claims against 

federal judges. However, judicial resources would be required to determine whether each 

particular claim in fact is frivolous or harassing. Moreover, it is not at all clear that imposition of 

a monetary sanction would deter Plaintiff’s conduct, given his determination to sue federal judges.

Based on this record, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s conduct in suing federal judges 

has been both frivolous and harassing.

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 14 of 16
15

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

D. Narrowly Tailored 

Of the dozens of lawsuits that Plaintiff has filed in this district, approximately half have 

asserted claims against federal judges. The suits against federal judges all appear to be based on 

judicial acts for which the defendant judges are absolutely immune. Until recently, Judge Chen’s 

Vexatious Litigant Order sufficed to ensure that those suits were barred at the outset. However, in 

2019 at least three civil actions against federal judges were opened, either because Judge Chen’s 

order did not alert the Clerk’s Office staff that screening was required or because the complaint 

did not involve the statutes or parties specified in Judge Chen’s Order. Given Plaintiff’s history of 

suing federal judges, and the recent spate of suits against federal judges that were not barred at the 

outset by Judge Chen’s order, the Court concludes that an order requiring pre-filing review of 

complaints against federal judges is warranted. Such an order is narrowly tailored to address 

Plaintiff’s documented propensity to sue federal judges. The order will not prevent Plaintiff from 

proceeding with any potentially meritorious claim against federal judges, but it will protect this 

court and federal judges from the burdens imposed by frivolous and harassing suits.

E. The Prior Vexatious Litigant Order Remains in Effect

This order does not affect the continuing enforceability of Judge Chen’s pre-filing 

screening order.

 IV. ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

(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

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 15 of 16
16

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

(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. 

Dated: December 5, 2019 

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 26 Filed 12/05/19 Page 16 of 16