Lim v. New York State Board of Law Examiners
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-02660
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Lim v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, Judge Cisneros granted a fee waiver, denied service without prejudice, and ordered Lim to explain why dismissal should not follow.
Khor Chin Lim, who represented himself, must respond to the court's order to show cause or file an amended complaint. The named defendants were not ordered to be served at this stage.
What happened
In Lim v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, Khor Chin Lim, representing himself, asked to proceed without paying the filing fee and asked the U.S. Marshal to serve the defendants. The complaint names hundreds of people and organizations and describes alleged grievances spanning several decades.
The court said the complaint appeared frivolous because it was largely incomprehensible, asserted an implausible conspiracy in conclusory terms, joined many defendants and events that did not appear connected, and sought scattered forms of relief. The court did not dismiss the case at this stage.
Judge Cisneros granted Lim's request to proceed without paying the filing fee, denied his request for Marshal service without prejudice, and ordered him to file an amended complaint or explain why the current complaint is sufficient within three weeks. The court also said no temporary restraining-order motion was pending because Lim had filed memoranda but had not filed a motion clearly stating the requested relief.
The detailed version
- Lim v. New York State Board of Law Examiners · No. 4:25-cv-02660
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 7, 2025
Background
Khor Chin Lim filed the action without a lawyer and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. He also asked the U.S. Marshal to serve the defendants. The complaint's caption runs seventeen pages, and the description of parties continues to page sixty-three. It names hundreds of people and entities, including the New York State Board of Law Examiners, former President Barack Obama, Jamie Dimon, the People Action Party of Singapore, Deloitte & Touche, the Government of Malaysia, the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 24 Hour Fitness, the City of Santa Monica, Microsoft, Ruby Freeman, Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, and what the court described as apparently most or all Democratic members of Congress.
The complaint describes events and alleged grievances spanning multiple decades, including legal proceedings in Southeast Asia, failures of nursing examinations, and car accidents in Northern California. It also seeks varied relief, including declarations concerning election results, a request concerning the Malaysian prime minister, restrictions on arms supplies, a declaration that Lim is innocent of criminal charges to which he pleaded guilty, a declaration that he passed nursing examinations, and an injunction concerning litigation involving E. Jean Carroll and President Donald Trump.
Court’s assessment of the complaint
The court explained that it must screen a complaint filed without payment of the filing fee and dismiss it if it is frivolous, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief. The court also explained that complaints must provide a short and plain statement of the claim and may not improperly join unrelated defendants or events.
The court said Lim’s complaint appeared frivolous. It found that the complaint was largely incomprehensible, that alleged coordination among the hundreds of defendants was stated only conclusorily, and that the apparent theory that bribery by associates of Lee Kuan Yew caused Lim’s criminal prosecutions, examination failures, car accidents, university rejections, and other troubles appeared fanciful. The court also viewed the broad list of defendants and unrelated events as an extreme failure to follow the rules governing joinder. Because Lim was representing himself, the court noted that it had to read his filings generously and ordinarily allow amendment unless the defects could not be cured.
Rulings
The application to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted. The motion for service by the U.S. Marshal was denied without prejudice, meaning the court could order Marshal service later if Lim addressed the identified deficiencies.
The court ordered Lim to show cause—by filing either an amended complaint or a response explaining why the current complaint is sufficient—within three weeks of the order, and it did not dismiss the case in this order.
Lim had also filed a memorandum and a supplemental memorandum referring to an ex parte temporary restraining order. The court concluded that no temporary restraining-order motion was pending because the filings did not clearly state what relief Lim sought. The order was signed by J. Cisneros.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.