{"id":473,"date":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=473"},"modified":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","slug":"ou-young-robbins-third-prefiling-order-vexatious-litigant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=473","title":{"rendered":"Ou-Young v. Robbins \u2014 N.D. Cal. enters third pre-filing order against serial vexatious litigant who has filed 50+ frivolous cases"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young v. Patrick D. Robbins, et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-14<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-08983<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1651(a); pre-filing order; vexatious litigant; De Long v. Hennessey<\/em>; Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.<\/em>; substantiality doctrine; sovereign immunity; serial pro se filings against federal officials<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young, proceeding pro se, filed a federal complaint against U.S. Attorney officials Patrick D. Robbins, Pamela T. Johann, and Kelsey Helland, and against U.S. District Court Clerk of Court Mark B. Busby. Defendants moved for the entry of a third pre-filing order against Ou-Young under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1651(a).<\/p>\n

The record showed that Ou-Young is already subject to two prior federal pre-filing orders (the first in Ou-Young v. Roberts<\/em> in 2013 regarding certain criminal statutes and named parties, the second in Ou-Young v. Stone<\/em> in 2019 regarding federal judges) and at least two California state vexatious-litigant orders. The court was aware of fifty-one cases brought by Ou-Young in the Northern District, all dismissed after judicial review. Despite the prior pre-filing orders, Ou-Young had attempted to file complaints naming federal officials in another 30 cases since the second pre-filing order, sometimes attempting to end-run the existing orders by amending complaints after filing to add new federal defendants. His pattern is to bring a suit, have it dismissed, then file new suits alleging the actors in the prior suit conspired to deprive him of his rights \u2014 and to file motions to disqualify or sue the judges in subsequent cases.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the motion in part and entered a third pre-filing order, narrowed in scope. Following the four-part test from De Long v. Hennessey<\/em> and Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.<\/em>:<\/p>\n

Notice and opportunity to be heard:<\/strong> Ou-Young filed an opposition to the motion. The first De Long factor does not require an in-person hearing in the Ninth Circuit.<\/p>\n

Adequate record:<\/strong> The record showed Ou-Young is a serial vexatious litigant with two prior federal pre-filing orders, two state vexatious-litigant orders, and 51 dismissed federal cases \u2014 plus 30 additional attempted filings since the second pre-filing order. Both the volume and the harassing content of his lawsuits supported the order.<\/p>\n

Substantive findings of frivolousness:<\/strong> The court found the underlying complaint frivolous. Both claims violated the substantiality doctrine (bizarre conspiracy theories deprive the court of jurisdiction), failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity, and contained no facts plausibly alleging conspiracy or injury under N.D. Cal. Local Rule 5-1(b). The case continued his pattern of frivolous and harassing cases.<\/p>\n

Narrow tailoring:<\/strong> Defendants asked for a sweeping order requiring leave of court before filing any in propria persona civil action against any federal employee. The court narrowed the order to suits against Clerk of Court Mark Busby or any employee of the U.S. Attorney\u2019s Office. Ou-Young must attach a copy of the new order and the two previous pre-filing orders to any federal complaint (original or amended) he files in propria persona, and must do the same within two weeks of any state-court complaint of his being removed to the Northern District. Failure to comply will be grounds for dismissal.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n