Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara

Background

Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young had been declared a vexatious litigant and was subject to two orders requiring pre-filing review. The second order required him to obtain court permission before filing a complaint alleging claims against federal judges. After the court allowed his original complaint to be filed, Ou-Young submitted a first amended complaint as of right after the County Defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint. The amended complaint added dozens of claims and hundreds of defendants, including the judge handling this case and more than 100 other individuals identified as federal judges. It also reasserted claims against defendants previously dismissed for failure to complete service of process.

The County Defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint was terminated as moot after the amended complaint was filed. The County Defendants then filed an administrative motion to stay their deadline to respond to the amended complaint until the court completed its pre-filing review. Ou-Young opposed that request.

Recusal

Because Ou-Young named Judge Beth Labson Freeman as a defendant, the court considered whether recusal was required under 28 U.S.C. § 455. The court explained that recusal is required when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when the judge has personal bias or prejudice from an outside source. Ou-Young’s allegations against Judge Freeman were based on her pre-filing orders and rulings dismissing pleadings in his earlier lawsuits. The court held that these allegations concerned conduct and rulings during judicial proceedings rather than an outside source, so recusal was not warranted.

Federal Judges

The court screened the amended complaint under the pre-filing review orders because adding federal judges through an amended complaint did not avoid those orders. The court found that the amended complaint failed to state a potentially cognizable claim against the 108 individuals identified as federal judges. It explained that judges generally have absolute judicial immunity from civil suits, including immunity for judicial acts, and that allegations of bad faith or malice do not remove that protection. The opinion identified two exceptions: nonjudicial actions and judicial actions taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction. It found that Ou-Young’s allegations involved judicial acts, including issuing or applying pre-filing orders, dismissing pleadings and lawsuits, and denying appeals.

The court therefore dismissed the claims against the identified federal judges, including Judge Freeman, without leave to amend.

Previously Dismissed Defendants

The amended complaint also reasserted claims against John Chase, Jeanette Tonini, Karl Sandoval, Karan Dhadialla, and Jose Martinez. The court stated that Ou-Young had not obtained permission to reassert claims against those defendants and dismissed them without leave to amend.

County Defendants’ Deadline

The court found the County Defendants’ administrative motion to stay moot because it had screened the amended complaint. It extended the County Defendants’ deadline to respond to the amended complaint to March 28, 2022, fourteen days after the order was issued.

Service of Remaining Defendants

The court directed Ou-Young to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which requires service of the summons and complaint within 90 days after filing. The court warned that failure to serve the remaining defendants would result in dismissal of all unserved defendants without further notice.