Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-mc-80197/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-mc-80197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

Case No. 15-MC-80197-LHK 

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT

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.

BRUCE IVES, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-MC-80197-LHK 

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE 

COMPLAINT

Re: Dkt. No. 1

Plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant and is subject to a pre-filing order which

requires him to “obtain leave of [the] court before filing any further suits alleging any violations of 

the federal criminal statutes . . . 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) [and] 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c).” Ou-Young v. 

Roberts, 13-CV-04442-EMC (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 40 at 16. In the instant filing, Plaintiff seeks to 

file a complaint against Bruce Ives and F. Joseph Warin for allegedly violating “federal criminal 

statues . . . 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b) and 1512(c).” ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. Pursuant to the pre-filing order, 

the Court must “determine whether Plaintiff has stated a potentially cognizable claim in a short, 

intelligible and plain statement.” 13-CV-04442-EMC (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 40 at 17.

Plaintiff has failed to meet this requirement. In fact, Plaintiff seeks to file the same 

complaint that Plaintiff sought to file in Ou-Young v. Ives, 15-MC-80235-EJD (N.D. Cal.). In that 

Case 5:15-mc-80197-LHK Document 2 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-MC-80197-LHK 

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE COMPLAINT

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

action, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila concluded that “the criminal statutes Plaintiff cites in 

the Complaint do not provide for a private cause of action.” 15-MC-80235-EJD (N.D. Cal.), ECF 

No. 2 at 2. “This remains true no matter how many times [Plaintiff] submits this pleading.” Id. 

Accordingly, Judge Davila found Plaintiff’s complaint “barred by the pre-filing order.” Id.

Consistent with Judge Davila’s ruling, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a 

cognizable claim in the instant complaint. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to file the 

complaint. The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-mc-80197-LHK Document 2 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 2