Ya-Wen Feng v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center
- Joseph Spero
- 4:25-cv-06598
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Yvonne Feng v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Judge Tigar granted fee relief but dismissed the complaint with prejudice after screening implausible claims.
Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng’s case was dismissed with prejudice after screening; the court granted her permission to proceed without paying filing fees and directed the Clerk to close the case.
What happened
Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng sued Alta Bates Summit Medical Center and others, alleging that medical staff and federal investigators conspired against her, poisoned and surveilled her, and placed her under an involuntary hold. She asserted 20 claims and sought more than $2 million.
The court granted Feng permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. But it found that her allegations were too implausible and insubstantial to create federal jurisdiction and also determined that the complaint failed to state a claim under the screening statute.
Judge Jon S. Tigar dismissed the complaint with prejudice, meaning the case could not be refiled in that form, denied leave to amend because amendment would be futile, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Ya-Wen Feng v. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center · No. 4:25-cv-06598
- Joseph Spero
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng moved for permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. The court found that she could not pay the full fees or provide security and granted that request.
Feng’s complaint alleged that she was persecuted by federal investigators and pharmaceutical companies because of an invention she described as a non-invasive therapy. She alleged that people connected to the Federal Bureau of Investigation stalked, hacked, defamed, and surveilled her for 12 years and in multiple countries. She also alleged that, after becoming sick from food, she went to the emergency room at Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, where staff allegedly mistreated her, refused to treat her as part of a conspiracy with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, placed her under an involuntary psychiatric hold, injected her with toxic chemicals, and intended to kill her. The complaint asserted 20 claims and sought more than $2 million in damages.
Screening and analysis
Because Feng was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court explained that the screening standard for failure to state a claim is the same as the standard used for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It also explained that a federal court must dismiss a case when the plaintiff lacks constitutional standing or when the allegations are so insubstantial that they do not present a genuine federal controversy.
The court applied the substantiality doctrine. Under that doctrine, federal courts lack power to hear claims that are wholly without merit, plainly frivolous, or otherwise too implausible to support federal jurisdiction. The court concluded that Feng’s allegations were too insubstantial to create subject-matter jurisdiction. It also stated at the beginning of the opinion that the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Ruling
The court granted Feng’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. Upon screening, it dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court found that amendment would be futile and therefore did not grant leave to amend. It directed the Clerk to close the file.
Disposition
The fee application was granted. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice after screening, and leave to amend was not granted.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.