Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young v. Patrick D. Robbins, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially grants Defendants’ motion for entry of a third prefiling order against pro se Plaintiff Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young. The order requires Plaintiff to obtain leave before filing additional in propria persona civil actions in that district against the Clerk of Court or employees of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and to attach copies of this order and two prior federal prefiling orders.

Holdings

1. Under the All Writs Act, a district court may enjoin a litigant with an abusive and lengthy litigation history from filing further actions when the litigant receives notice and an opportunity to be heard, the record is adequate for review, the order is narrowly tailored to the specific abuse, and the court makes substantive findings that the litigant's conduct is frivolous or harassing.
2. Plaintiff received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard because Defendants filed the motion and Plaintiff filed an opposition; an in-person hearing or oral argument was not required.
3. The record was adequate and established that Plaintiff's litigation activity was numerous, repetitive, frivolous, and harassing.
4. The prefiling restriction had to be narrower than Defendants requested and was limited to Plaintiff's in propria persona civil actions in the Northern District of California against Clerk of Court Mark Busby or any employee of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
5. The underlying lawsuit was frivolous because its conspiracy theory was insubstantial or wholly implausible, the claims did not establish waiver of sovereign immunity, and the claims lacked adequate factual and jurisdictional support.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had authority under the All Writs Act to impose a third prefiling order against Plaintiff.
2. Whether Plaintiff received notice and an opportunity to be heard before entry of the prefiling order.
3. Whether the record adequately demonstrated numerous or abusive litigation activity and frivolous or harassing conduct.
4. Whether the requested prefiling restriction was narrowly tailored.
5. What filing restrictions and documentation requirements should apply.

Disposition

other