Ou-Young v. Stone

Background

Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young, representing himself, filed the action in state court. The complaint contained three claims. Claim 1 alleged that the County, Assessor Lawrence E. Stone, Senior Assessment Clerk Jeanette Tonini, and District Attorney Jeffery Rosen engaged in “unreasonable seizures” by ending Ou-Young’s homeowner’s exemption and thereby illegally increasing his property taxes. Claims 2 and 3 alleged conspiracy against numerous federal and local officials and employees.

After removal to federal court, the district’s General Duty Judge dismissed Claims 2 and 3 with prejudice and allowed the complaint to proceed only as to Claim 1. This order directed the clerk to terminate the defendants named only in those dismissed claims. The order also noted that Tonini had not appeared and that the docket did not show service on her. County and Stone represented that Tonini was deceased, so the court ordered Ou-Young to explain in writing within fourteen days why the action should not be dismissed against her.

Claim Against the County and Stone

The court liberally construed Claim 1 as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute, alleging violation of the Fourth Amendment. County and Stone moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Ou-Young did not oppose the motion.

As to the County, the court held that Ou-Young had not alleged that ending his homeowner’s exemption resulted from a County policy, as required for local-government liability under § 1983. As to Stone, the court held that Ou-Young had not alleged Stone’s personal participation. The only allegation connecting Stone to the violation was the conclusory statement that he had conspired to deprive Ou-Young of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The court also considered the Tax Injunction Act, which generally bars federal courts from interfering with state tax assessment, collection, or related relief when an adequate state-court remedy is available. The court stated that Ou-Young’s claim appeared to fall within that bar because it challenged termination of the homeowner’s exemption and the resulting property-tax increase, and he had not alleged that an adequate state remedy was unavailable.

Disposition

The court granted County and Stone’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. It found that amendment would be futile and that Ou-Young appeared to be acting in bad faith by repeatedly filing substantially the same Fourth Amendment claim against County, Stone, and others. The court also cited his failure to oppose the motion and the prejudice that continued litigation would impose on County and Stone.

The court vacated the April 2, 2020 hearing on the motion and the initial case-management conference. It warned that failure to serve Rosen within the required period, or by April 9, 2020, would result in dismissal against him. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered the order, and the order terminated the motion docket entry.