Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01885/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01885-0/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE B. SONG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHYUE Y. CHANG and DOES 1-5,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-1885 CRB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

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).

This action is identical to two previous actions filed by plaintiff and dismissed by this 

Case 3:06-cv-01885-CRB Document 8 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

Court, 05-3041 and 05-3813. Plaintiff is a 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 treatment of snoring. 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.” He objects to the assignment of this action to this Court. As this case is

identical to the previous two actions filed by plaintiff, this lawsuit was appropriately

reassigned to this Court.

Plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed for all the reasons the Court stated in its order

dismissing 05-3813. Plaintiff admits that defendant resides in Taiwan; he erroneously asserts

that he need not show that this Court has personal jurisdiction of defendant. His new

pleading also does not state a claim under the Antiterrorism Act as a matter of law. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court has ruled. If

Case 3:06-cv-01885-CRB Document 8 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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\1885\orderofdismissal.wpd 3

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01885-CRB Document 8 Filed 03/21/06 Page 3 of 3