Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cr-00263/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cr-00263-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kuang Bao Ou-Young
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Kuang Bao Ou-Young 

Defendant. 

Case No. 17-mj-70661-MAG-1 

ORDER RE DETENTION 

PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 

18 USC §3142(f)2 

In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), the Government moved for 

detention of DEFENDANT KUANG BAO OU-YOUNG (“DEFENDANT”), and the Court on 

May 5th, 2017, held a detention hearing to determine whether any condition or combination of 

conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of 

any other person and the community. 

 The Court finds that there was not enough information provided to make a final detention 

determination, orders that additional information be provided as set forth below, continues the 

detention hearing to May 23, 2017, and, in light of the nature of allegations asserted against 

DEFENDANT and the observations of the COURT, orders the DEFENDANT detained until that 

date in accordance with 18 USC § 3142(f)2. 

The DEFENDANT was arrested on May 1, 2017, and a Complaint setting forth the 

charges was filed on May 2, 2017. The Complaint alleges two counts in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 111, arising out of conduct that took place on May 1, 2017, at U.S. District Court, 

280 S. First Street, San Jose, CA., 95113. Specifically the Complaint alleges that on May 1, 2017 

DEFENDANT entered the courtroom of Edward J. Davila and loudly and in a disruptive manner 

demanded to see Judge Davila. DEFENDANT refused to comply with directions of the Court 

Case 3:17-cr-00263-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/08/17 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

Security Officers (CSOs), requiring the CSOs to physically remove DEFENDANT from the 

courtroom. Once outside the courtroom, DEFENDANT broke free of the CSOs and in the course 

of the CSOs attempting to regain control of DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT struck a CSO in the 

knee, groin and lip. Once the CSOs regained control of DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT was 

handcuffed and escorted off of the Court floor. 

 The Complaint also alleges that Defendant had previously engaged in disruptive behavior in 

Judge Davila’s courtroom on April 27, 2017. Defendant has been identified by the Northern 

District of California as a vexatious litigant. Ou-Young v. Roberts, Case No. 3:13-cv-4442-EMC, 

Order (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2013) (order granting motion to dismiss and declaring plaintiff a 

vexatious litigant). 

As documented in the ECF records of this case, DEFENDANT initially appeared on 

May 2, 2017. A detention hearing was scheduled for May 5, 2017, and a full bail study was 

requested. Also on May 2, 2017, the Court was a provided a copy of OU-YOUNG’s financial 

affidavit on which OU-YOUNG had written, in pertinent part: 

The attorney is not working on the signee’s best interest. The court and the U.S. 

Attorney’s office are colluded to frame the signee. Anything happening to the signee 

while he is in jail, is the responsibility (sic) of the attorney, the court, the U.S. attorney’s 

office and US Marshal services. 

On May 2, 2017, Pretrial Services attempted to interview DEFENDANT. However, 

DEFENDANT refused to be interviewed, demanding instead that a specific statement be reflected 

in the report. Unable to obtain information on potentially mitigating release conditions, Pretrial 

Services recommended detention. DEFENDANT’s statement and behavior during the interview, 

which will not be set forth here in light of the confidentiality provisions of 

18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(1), along with DEFENDANT’s refusal to be interviewed, further support a 

continuation of the detention hearing. 

The detention hearing commenced on May 5, 2017, and was held publicly. The 

DEFENDANT was present at the detention hearing, represented by his attorney 

Case 3:17-cr-00263-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/08/17 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

James McNair Thompson (provisionally appointed from the Criminal Justice Act Panel). The 

Government was represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maia Perez. Both parties were allowed 

an opportunity to question witnesses and to present evidence. Both parties presented their 

arguments by way of proffer through counsel. DEFENDANT indicated by his words and actions 

that he was willing to be represented by Mr. McNair Thompson, and Mr. McNair Thompson, in 

response to the Court’s inquiry, indicated that appointment of counsel was not an issue. The Court 

noted the continuing, provisional, appointment of Mr. McNair Thompson. Later in the 

proceedings DEFENDANT inquired if he could retain his own attorney, and he was informed that 

he could, but at no time did DEFENDANT object to Mr. McNair Thompson’s representation of 

him in these proceedings. 

 In consideration of the assaultive nature of the allegations against DEFENDANT, together 

with the nature of statements made both on his financial affidavit and to Pretrial Services and the 

observations of this Court, the Court ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 

1. That Pretrial Services, in coordination and with the assistance of Mr. McNair 

Thompson, endeavor again to interview DEFENDANT OU-YOUNG. The Court 

explained to DEFENDANT that such an interview would provide a means of 

establishing whether there were conditions upon which DEFENDANT could be 

released pending trial; 

2. That DEFENDANT undergo a mental evaluation at the direction of Pre-trial Services 

pursuant to an order filed herewith. The Court is informed that such an evaluation 

could be completed within two weeks. 

3. That DEFENDANT is remanded to the custody of the U.S. MARSHALS pending the 

continued detention hearing. 

 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:17-cr-00263-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/08/17 Page 3 of 4
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 Californi

a

Accordingly, the detention hearing is continued to May 23, 2017. In the event that information 

becomes available prior to that date that would inform detention proceedings, counsel may contact 

the court to advance the hearing. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 8, 2017 

 

SUSAN VAN KEULEN 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:17-cr-00263-MMC Document 6 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 4