The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN CASE [re: dkt. entry 89]
Plaintiff Yong Tan Huang ("Huang") moves to reopen this case, which was closed on September 19, 2011. The Court has considered the briefing, the admissible evidence, and the oral 21 argument presented at the hearing on January 31, 2013. For the reasons discussed below, the 22 motion will be denied. 23
On April 16, 2010, Huang filed a Notice of Removal that purported to remove his own 25 complaint from the Santa Clara Superior Court. Huang alleged that he was injured while 26 constructing a deck on the property of Tim and Gayle Bell. He claimed that the Bells had been 27 negligent and that two state court judges committed misconduct during Huang's litigation of state 28 court claims against the Bells. On May 7, 2010, this case was related to Huang v. Bell, et al., Case No. 5:09-cv-05099-JF, an earlier filed action in which Huang asserted claims against the Bells and 2 others arising from the same alleged injuries on the Bells' property. The Court subsequently denied 3 numerous motions filed by Huang seeking, inter alia, disqualification of the undersigned, leave to 4 proceed in forma pauperis, and entry of default. On September 19, 2011, the Court dismissed both 5 federal actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its dismissal order, the Court noted that 6 Huang had failed to demonstrate jurisdiction on the basis of federal question, as follows: 8
4. The facts recited at length in the complaint all concern Huang's personal injuries and the proceedings in state court. Huang's only attempts to relate those facts to federal law consist of assertions that (1) the state court violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by dismissing his case for noncompliance with court orders, Dkt. 1 at 20, and (2) the Bells committed perjury in the state court action in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621, Dkt. 1 at 36. The due process claim is insufficient on its face, as a "federal district court does not have jurisdiction to review constitutional challenges to a state court's decision." Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994). The perjury allegation also is insufficient, as private citizens such as Huang "may not premise civil liability on the alleged violation of federal criminal statutes which do not provide, as a general matter, private causes of action." Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1197 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
Dkt. Entry 49, Order, at 3-4. The case was closed in September 2011.
18 judge determined that Huang was a vexatious litigant. Huang
thereafter filed numerous documents 19 in this Court, including a
"Motion to Request to Correct Unlawful Order of Judge Pierce filed on
August 30, 2012 for Violation of 42 1983, C.C.P." See Dkt. Entry 86.
Court staff informed Huang 21 by telephone that the Court could not
act on his motion unless and until the case was reopened. On 22
November 15, 2012, Huang filed the present motion to reopen the case.
Because Defendants had 23 not yet appeared at the time the case was
dismissed, they did not receive electronic service of the 24 motion
via the Court's electronic case filing system, nor were they required
to respond to the 25 motion. However, Huang apparently informed
Defendants of the motion, and they filed opposition 26 on December 14,
2012. Huang filed a reply on December 21, 2012 and a second reply on
December 28, 2012. He submitted a third reply on January 23, 2013, and a
declaration in support of that reply 28
Huang had not asserted jurisdiction based upon diversity of
citizenship, and it also explained that 7
Huang complains of "negligence on the part of the" Bells, Dkt. 1 at 2,
and that his "[s]tate court judgment was procured through fraud,
deception and perjury," Dkt. 1 at
Huang apparently continued to seek relief in the state court, and at
some point the state trial
on January 28, 2013.*fn1 2
3 the date the opposition is due. Civ. L.R. 7-3(c). The Rules expressly prohibit the filing of serial 4 documents such as those submitted by Huang in this case. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). However, given 5
Huang's pro se status, the Court in the exercise of its discretion will consider all of the reply 6 materials submitted by Huang prior to the hearing. 7
8 presented at the hearing, the Court remains of the opinion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction 9 over this case. Huang insists that he has asserted two federal questions: 10
ATTORNEY, MR. HUGH LENNON;
2. JUDGE PIERCE' [sic] ORDER IGNORED FACT AND EVIDENCE REPEATEDLY RAISED BY THE PLAINTIFF ...