Opinion
22-mc-80341-SI
01-06-2023
KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young is a vexatious litigant who is subject to two prefiling orders in this District. See Order Requiring that Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young Obtain Leave of Ct. Before Filing Any Compl. Against Federal Judges 15, Ou-Young v. Stone, No. 19-cv-07000- BLF, ECF No. 26 (Dec. 5, 2019); Order Granting United States' Mot. to Dismiss and Declaring Pl. a Vexatious Litigant, Ou-Young v. Roberts, No. 13-cv-04442-EMC, ECF No. 40 (Dec. 20, 2013).
On December 29, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint in the present action, against various state and county officials, including state court judges. Dkt. No. 1. This Court is now tasked with determining whether the complaint is covered by either of plaintiff's pre-filing review orders.
On November 14, 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint in Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara, No. 22-mc-80308-NC, that is identical in nearly every respect to the complaint plaintiff filed in this case. In that case, Chief Judge Seeborg denied leave to file the complaint, stating:
The only differences between the two complaints that the Court can discern are that they have different filing dates listed on their final pages, and the complaint in this case uses the acronym “DCAG” [deputy attorney general of California] at the end of the sentence in paragraph a20 rather than in the middle of the sentence in paragraph a20.
Although the exact basis of Ou-Young's claims is not entirely clear, it is obvious that the complaint overlaps, is intertwined with, and/or is duplicative of, several of the actions that he has previously been denied permission to file under either or both of
the pre-filing review orders, and that he is continuing to pursue meritless claims against parties that are entitled to immunity.
Order Denying Leave to File, Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara, No. 22-mc-80308-NC, ECF No. 2 (Nov. 15, 2022).
The Court notes that plaintiff's recent filings seem to follow a pattern: plaintiff files a complaint that does not name the defendants listed in the two prefiling orders; plaintiff then amends the complaint to add numerous federal judges as defendants; the assigned Judge then dismisses the complaint, giving plaintiff 14 days to amend the complaint with instructions not to allege claims against any judges; plaintiff does not amend the complaint; the case is dismissed for failure to prosecute; and plaintiff then files a new lawsuit, such that the cycle starts all over again. See generally Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara, No. 22-cv-4396-CRB (filed July 29, 2022); Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara, No. 22-cv-5066-EJD (filed Sept. 7, 2022).
This is at least the fourth time since July 2022 that plaintiff has brought a lawsuit based on substantially the same facts and against the same defendants. Each of the prior three times, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed. See Order Denying Leave to File, Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara, No. 22-mc-80308-NC, ECF No. 2 (Nov. 15, 2022); Order Dismissing Init. Compl., Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara, No. 22-cv-5066-EJD, ECF No. 9 (Sept. 26, 2022); Order to Clerk Not to File Proposed Am. Compl. and Dismissing Init. Compl., Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara, No. 22-cv-4396-CRB, ECF No. 10 (Aug. 23, 2022).
For the same reasons stated in the Orders issued by Chief Judge Seeborg, Judge Breyer, and Judge Davila, the Court will DENY leave to file the complaint in this case. The Court sua sponte DISMISSES plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). See Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)”) (citation omitted). The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.