Ou-Young v. Stone

Background

In 2013, a district judge entered an order declaring Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young a vexatious litigant and requiring advance review of certain future complaints. That earlier order covered claims involving specified federal criminal statutes and the Federal Tort Claims Act, as well as parties involved in earlier related proceedings.

After that order, Ou-Young submitted twenty-five complaints that underwent advance review. The court stated that many involved federal judges. Ou-Young also filed motions seeking to intervene in cases to which he was not a party, disqualify judges, and vacate court orders; those motions were denied. The court described multiple later complaints against federal judges, including complaints based on judicial rulings and complaints that repeated claims previously rejected.

The present action was filed in state court and later transferred to federal court. It named Lawrence E. Stone, Jeanette Tonini, Edward J. Davila, and Santa Clara County as defendants. The court had already dismissed the claims against Judge Davila based on judicial immunity. The claims against the county defendants were proceeding. The United States appeared as a friend of the court and requested advance review of all future claims against federal judges. Ou-Young opposed that request and argued that it would deprive him of his right to a jury trial. The opinion states that he was not represented by counsel.

Legal standard

The court relied on the All Writs Act, a federal law that gives district courts authority to issue orders managing abusive litigation, including advance-filing restrictions for vexatious litigants. Because court access is a fundamental right, such restrictions should be rare and must satisfy four requirements:

The court also considered five factors identified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: the litigant’s litigation history; the motive for pursuing the litigation; whether the litigant has counsel; the burden imposed on parties and courts; and whether less restrictive measures would be sufficient.

Discussion

The court found that the notice requirement was satisfied because it had issued an order asking Ou-Young to explain why advance review should not be imposed, and Ou-Young had responded and opposed the restriction. The court also found the record adequate because it identified the relevant complaints and motions and described the claims against federal judges.

The court concluded that the substantive factors supported the restriction. It found that Ou-Young had filed or attempted to file at least fourteen actions against federal judges after the 2013 order, along with at least one state-court action against Judge Davila that was later transferred to federal court. The court stated that all of Ou-Young’s claims against federal judges had been found meritless except for claims in one case that had not yet been considered on their merits.

The court further found that Ou-Young’s lawsuits generally followed unfavorable rulings by judges and that he repeatedly asserted claims based on the same judicial acts even after being told that such claims were not viable. Based on this pattern, the court concluded that his purpose was to harass federal judges through litigation. It also found that the repeated filings burdened the court and used resources that could be devoted to other cases.

The court considered monetary penalties as a less restrictive alternative but found that they might not deter the conduct and would still require judicial resources to decide whether each claim was frivolous or harassing. The court therefore concluded that Ou-Young’s conduct had been both frivolous and harassing.

Order

The court ordered that Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young must obtain leave of court before filing any complaint alleging claims against federal judges. The order includes United States Supreme Court justices, federal circuit judges, federal district judges, federal magistrate judges, and federal bankruptcy judges.

The Clerk of Court was ordered not to accept such a complaint until a judge reviewed and approved it for filing. The complaint is to be sent to the general-duty judge for advance screening. The order applies to complaints filed in the district, complaints filed in state court and later transferred to the district, and complaints filed in adversary proceedings in the district’s bankruptcy court.

The court stated that the new order does not affect the continuing enforceability of the earlier pre-filing screening order and would not prevent Ou-Young from pursuing a potentially meritorious claim against a federal judge.