Ou-Young v. County of Santa Clara

Background

The court had previously dismissed this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court had dismissed an amended complaint and allowed Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young 14 days to file another amended complaint, while instructing him not to assert claims against judges or claims arising directly from judicial acts. The court warned that failing to follow those instructions would result in dismissal. Ou-Young did not file another amended complaint.

The opinion describes earlier screening orders requiring Ou-Young to obtain court permission before filing certain complaints, including complaints against federal judges. It also describes a related earlier proceeding in which a judge directed that a proposed amended complaint not be filed and allowed Ou-Young to amend under restrictions. The court concluded that Ou-Young's filings in this action attempted to avoid those restrictions and included many claims against judges and other defendants.

After the dismissal, Ou-Young filed two identical motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). That rule permits a court to set aside a judgment or order if it is void. The Ninth Circuit held the appellate proceedings in abeyance while the district court considered the motions.

Court's analysis

The court explained that an order is void under Rule 60(b)(4) when the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction or acted inconsistently with due process. Ordinary errors in deciding a case generally do not make an order void.

The court rejected Ou-Young's argument that a three-judge panel was required under 28 U.S.C. § 2284, finding that statute inapplicable to the circumstances. The court also rejected his claim that the dismissal improperly allowed defendants to avoid responding to his amended complaint, explaining that the amended complaint had been filed in violation of the court's orders and had been accepted by the clerk in error.

The court further rejected Ou-Young's assertions that the dismissal violated his rights to petition the government, due process, a jury trial, and equal protection. The court found that its earlier order clearly authorized him to file an amended complaint within 14 days and warned him that failing to do so would lead to dismissal. Because the dismissal was not based on a jurisdictional error and Ou-Young had an opportunity to be heard, the court found that the order was not void.

Disposition

The court DENIED Ou-Young's motions to vacate the dismissal. It found the motions at ECF Nos. 23–28 and 34–37 moot and ORDERED Ou-Young not to file any more documents on the docket while the case was pending before the Ninth Circuit. Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order.