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

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KUANG-BAO PAUL OU-YOUNG, Case No. 25-cv-08983-CRB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 10 v. DISMISS 11 PATRICK D. ROBBINS, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Pro se Plaintiff Kuang-Bao Paul Ou-Young brought suit against: Patrick D.

14 Robbins, Acting U.S. Attorney; Pamela T. Johann, Chief, Civil Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office; Kelsey Helland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office (collectively, “U.S. Attorney Defendants”); and Mark B. Busby, Clerk, U.S. District Court. See FAC (dkt. 4). The case stems from a November 2024 case that Plaintiff brought against Busby and others, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s motion to dismiss and motion to expand pre- filing orders in that case. Id. ¶¶ 1–3. Plaintiff’s two claims here allege (1) that Defendants “conspired . . . to deny [P]laintiff the First Amendment right to petition the government” by failing to serve him with the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion to expand pre- filing orders; and (2) that Civil Local Rule 5-1(b), which requires pre se parties to file case-initiating documents manually, violated his equal protection and due process rights.

24 Id. ¶¶ c1, c2. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, see MTD (dkt. 16)1; Reply re MTD (dkt. 21); and Plaintiff opposes the motion, see Opp’n re MTD (dkt. 19).2 However, Defendants separately move for the entry of a third pre-filing order, see Vex. Mem. (dkt.

17), and ask that the Court rule on that order prior to ruling on the motion to dismiss, see Plaintiff’s opposition does not address any of the arguments Defendants make in moving to dismiss. Rather, Plaintiff inaccurately asserts that Judge Eumi K. Lee, by authorizing the filing of the complaint, addressed “[w]hatever issues” Defendants raised in the motion to dismiss. See Opp’n at 1–2. This is wrong, as Judge Lee’s order merely held that the complaint did not implicate the two existing pre-filing orders. See Opp’n Ex. A (dkt. 19- 2). Because he does not address any of Defendants’ arguments, Plaintiff concedes them.

7 See Tyler v. Travelers Commercial Ins. Co., 499 F. Supp. 3d 693, 701 (N.D. Cal. 2020).

8 Even if Plaintiff had opposed Defendants’ arguments, those arguments would still prevail.

10 The Court DISMISSES the case under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the first claim—baselessly alleging a conspiracy between officials from two branches of government not to serve him with two filings notwithstanding his ECF service copies—violates the substantiality doctrine. See Ou-Young v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, No. 21-cv-07361-BLF, 2022 WL 1471411, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2022) (district court lacks jurisdiction over “bizarre or wholly implausible conspiracy theories”). It also dismisses both claims under Rule 12(b)(1) because Plaintiff failed to establish that the United States waived sovereign immunity for these official capacity claims.3 18 The Court also DISMISSES the case under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because both claims are conclusory. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (requiring “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”). The first claim fails to allege how and when the Defendants conspired to violate Plaintiff’s rights or even what not receiving paper copies of documents has to do with his rights. See FAC ¶ c1. The second claim does not make sense—the conduct Plaintiff complains of is not about case-initiating filings that would be subject to Rule 5- 1(b), Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants were involved in enacting Rule 5-1(b), and Local Rule 7-1(b), VACATES the hearing previously set for February 13, 2026, and GRANTS the motion.

1 || Plaintiff does not allege how he was injured by Rule 5-1(b). See id. § 2.

2 Because the Court concludes that amendment would be futile, dismissal is with || prejudice. See Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir, || 2003).

5 IT ISSO ORDERED.

6 Dated: January 14, 2026 Cc CHARLES R. BREYER 7 United States District Judge 1]

Zz