Ou-Young v. Stone
- Beth Freeman
- 5:19-cv-07000
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ou-Young v. Stone, Judge Freeman dismissed claims against Judge Davila without leave to amend because absolute judicial immunity barred them.
Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young’s claims against Judge Edward J. Davila were dismissed without leave to amend. This order did not resolve the claims against the other defendants.
What happened
In Ou-Young v. Stone, Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young challenged the termination of his homeowners’ property-tax exemption after his spouse transferred her interest in their residence to him. He also sued Judge Edward J. Davila over actions connected to screening an earlier federal filing.
The court considered whether Judge Davila was protected by absolute judicial immunity, which generally shields judges from civil suits based on their judicial acts. The court concluded that the allegations concerned acts performed in Judge Davila’s judicial capacity and within his jurisdiction.
Judge Freeman ruled that Judge Davila was absolutely immune and dismissed Ou-Young’s claims against him without leave to amend because changing the allegations would be futile. This order did not address the requested expansion of the pre-filing screening order, which the court said it would address separately.
The detailed version
- Ou-Young v. Stone · No. 5:19-cv-07000
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 2, 2019
Background
Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young filed the action in state court, alleging that his spouse transferred her interest in their residence to him and that the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office then terminated his homeowners’ exemption to increase his property tax. The defendants named in the complaint included Lawrence E. Stone, Jeanette Tonini, the County of Santa Clara, and United States District Judge Edward J. Davila.
The claims against Judge Davila concerned his judicial acts in screening a federal complaint filed by Ou-Young under a pre-filing screening order. The United States removed the state-court action to federal court on Judge Davila’s behalf under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(3). The court then ordered Ou-Young to explain why the claims against Judge Davila should not be dismissed based on absolute judicial immunity and why the pre-filing screening order should not be expanded to include federal judges.
Judicial immunity
The court explained that judges generally have absolute immunity from civil suits based on their judicial acts. That protection is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice. The opinion identified two exceptions: a judge is not immune for nonjudicial actions or for judicial actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction.
The court found that Ou-Young’s allegations against Judge Davila clearly arose from acts taken in Judge Davila’s judicial capacity. The court also stated that even if Judge Davila had dismissed Ou-Young’s federal complaint, that would have been a judicial act taken within the judge’s jurisdiction. The court rejected Ou-Young’s argument that the Federal Tort Claims Act defeated Judge Davila’s immunity.
Disposition
The court held that Judge Davila was entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Because the claims arose from acts for which Judge Davila was immune, the court found that allowing amendment would be futile. The court therefore dismissed Ou-Young’s claims against Judge Davila without leave to amend.
The order did not decide the requested expansion of the pre-filing screening order; the court stated that issue would be addressed in a separate order. The opinion also does not state a disposition in this order for the claims against the other defendants.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.