Ou-Young v. Leavy

Background

On December 20, 2013, a court order declared Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young a vexatious litigant and required pre-filing review of certain complaints involving specified federal criminal statutes, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and parties from earlier cases. On December 5, 2019, another order required Ou-Young to obtain leave before filing any complaint against federal judges, including judges of the Supreme Court, circuit courts, district courts, magistrate courts, and bankruptcy courts.

Ou-Young originally sued Edward Leavy, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Carlos T. Bea. The original complaint was screened, and the Clerk determined that the first screening order did not apply. Ou-Young later filed a first amended complaint without seeking or obtaining leave under the second screening order. That complaint added more than 100 defendants, including federal judges and court personnel, Department of Justice and United States Attorney's Office personnel, United States Patent and Trademark Office personnel, members of Congress, current and former White House administration members, other federal employees, local law-enforcement entities and officials, companies, detention-facility officials and employees, Taiwan, the Republic of China, and others.

Court's analysis

The court found that both screening orders applied because the amended complaint named numerous federal judges and some defendants from Ou-Young's prior lawsuits. After reviewing the amended complaint, the court found that it failed to state a potentially cognizable claim against any of the federal defendants.

The court ruled that the judges had absolute judicial immunity for the alleged judicial acts, including deciding appeals and petitions, ruling on disqualification motions, dismissing lawsuits and misconduct complaints, issuing the screening orders, ordering detention, issuing an arrest warrant, ordering a psychological examination, and denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It ruled that federal court personnel had absolute quasi-judicial immunity for tasks integral to the judicial process, such as reassigning a case, failing to issue summonses, and failing to provide notice of a direct appeal. It also ruled that employees of the United States Attorney's Office had absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions taken in prosecuting Ou-Young's criminal case, including instituting the case, filing an indictment, and continuing the prosecution.

The court further stated that any claims against federal defendants not barred by absolute immunity were barred by qualified immunity, which protects public officials unless their conduct violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. The court found that Ou-Young did not allege conduct by the federal defendants or nonfederal public officials that violated such rights. It also stated that almost all of the alleged conduct occurred outside California's one-year limitations period for Bivens claims, meaning claims seeking damages from federal officials for constitutional violations.

As to the additional defendants who were not federal defendants, the court found that the amended complaint alleged no facts supporting a potentially cognizable claim. It dismissed those claims without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.

Disposition

The court DISMISSED the action WITH PREJUDICE. It TERMINATED the motion to disqualify counsel and the second motion to vacate the pre-filing screening orders. The order also notes that the court had previously denied Ou-Young's first motion to vacate the screening orders.