Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Kuang-Bao Ou-Young’s first amended complaint was before the court for prefiling screening after the general duty judge recused himself. The complaint named 108 defendants, including federal and state officials, judicial officers, court personnel, federal and state employees, and businesses. Various federal defendants had removed the action from state court.

The court stated that Ou-Young had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and was required to obtain permission before filing certain lawsuits involving specified parties or federal criminal statutes, and before filing a complaint against federal judges. The court concluded that both earlier prefiling orders applied because the amended complaint named federal judges and defendants from prior lawsuits.

Reasons for the Proposed Dismissal

The court characterized the amended complaint as a “shotgun” pleading that did not identify a causal connection among its factual allegations. The allegations concerned subjects including Ou-Young’s employment, alleged fraudulent property transfers, prior lawsuits, public-office appointments, elections, and impeachment trials.

Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim for relief, the court found several categories of alleged claims barred or unsupported:

- Judges were absolutely immune from civil liability for damages based on their judicial acts. Court personnel had similar quasi-judicial immunity for tasks integral to the judicial process, such as issuing court documents and assigning cases. - Prosecutors had absolute immunity for actions taken as advocates, and the complaint did not plausibly allege that the identified prosecutors acted outside their discretion. - Members of Congress were absolutely immune for legislative acts, and presidents were absolutely immune for official acts. The court also found that the complaint did not plausibly allege that other public officials violated clearly established rights, which is required to overcome qualified immunity. - As to Google, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Twitter, Inc., Santa Clara County, and county employees, the court found no plausible facts or cognizable claim, even construing the complaint liberally because Ou-Young was representing himself. - The complaint asserted nineteen causes of action based on alleged perjury. The court understood these claims to rely on 18 U.S.C. § 1621 but stated that this statute does not create a private right to sue.

Order

The court did not enter a final dismissal in this order. Instead, it ordered Ou-Young to show cause in writing, by January 28, 2022, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The response could not exceed 15 pages. The court stated that if he failed to respond, it would summarily dismiss the case without leave to amend because he could not possibly prevail. The court was “inclined to dismiss this case with prejudice,” finding amendment apparently futile, but allowed Ou-Young an opportunity to respond. Judge Yvonne Rogers also stated that the court would not consider arguments seeking to vacate the prefiling order based on the claim that the law of the case had been established on that issue.