United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER RE DETENTION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO 18 USC
VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge
accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §
3142(f), the Government moved for detention of DEFENDANT
KUANG BAO OU-YOUNG (“DEFENDANT”), and the Court
on May 5th, 2017, held a detention hearing to
determine whether any condition or combination of conditions
would reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as
required and the safety of any other person and the
Court finds that there was not enough information provided to
make a final detention determination, orders that additional
information be provided as set forth below, continues the
detention hearing to May 23, 2017, and, in light of the
nature of allegations asserted against DEFENDANT and the
observations of the COURT, orders the DEFENDANT detained
until that date in accordance with 18 USC § 3142(f)2.
DEFENDANT was arrested on May 1, 2017, and a Complaint
setting forth the charges was filed on May 2, 2017. The
Complaint alleges two counts in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
111, arising out of conduct that took place on May 1, 2017,
at U.S. District Court, 280 S. First Street, San Jose, CA.,
95113. Specifically the Complaint alleges that on May 1, 2017
DEFENDANT entered the courtroom of Edward J. Davila and
loudly and in a disruptive manner demanded to see Judge
Davila. DEFENDANT refused to comply with directions of the
Court Security Officers (CSOs), requiring the CSOs to
physically remove DEFENDANT from the courtroom. Once outside
the courtroom, DEFENDANT broke free of the CSOs and in the
course of the CSOs attempting to regain control of DEFENDANT,
DEFENDANT struck a CSO in the knee, groin and lip. Once the
CSOs regained control of DEFENDANT, DEFENDANT was handcuffed
and escorted off of the Court floor.
Complaint also alleges that Defendant had previously engaged
in disruptive behavior in Judge Davila's courtroom on
April 27, 2017. Defendant has been identified by the Northern
District of California as a vexatious litigant. Ou-Young
v. Roberts, Case No. 3:13-cv-4442-EMC, Order (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 20, 2013) (order granting motion to dismiss and
declaring plaintiff a vexatious litigant).
documented in the ECF records of this case, DEFENDANT
initially appeared on May 2, 2017. A detention hearing was
scheduled for May 5, 2017, and a full bail study was
requested. Also on May 2, 2017, the Court was a provided a
copy of OU-YOUNG's financial affidavit on which OU-YOUNG
had written, in pertinent part:
The attorney is not working on the signee's best
interest. The court and the U.S. Attorney's office are
colluded to frame the signee. Anything happening to the
signee while he is in jail, is the responsibility (sic) of
the attorney, the court, the U.S. attorney's office and
U.S. Marshal services.
2, 2017, Pretrial Services attempted to interview DEFENDANT.
However, DEFENDANT refused to be interviewed, demanding
instead that a specific statement be reflected in the report.
Unable to obtain information on potentially mitigating
release conditions, Pretrial Services recommended detention.
DEFENDANT's statement and behavior during the interview,
which will not be set forth here in light of the
confidentiality provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(1),
along with DEFENDANT's refusal to be interviewed, further
support a continuation of the detention hearing.
detention hearing commenced on May 5, 2017, and was held
publicly. The DEFENDANT was present at the detention hearing,
represented by his attorney James McNair Thompson
(provisionally appointed from the Criminal Justice Act
Panel). The Government was represented by Assistant U.S.
Attorney Maia Perez. Both parties were allowed an opportunity
to question witnesses and to present evidence. Both parties
presented their arguments by way of proffer through counsel.
DEFENDANT indicated by his words and actions that he was
willing to be represented by Mr. McNair Thompson, and Mr.
McNair Thompson, in response to the Court's inquiry,
indicated that appointment of counsel was not an issue. The
Court noted the continuing, provisional, appointment of Mr.
McNair Thompson. Later in the proceedings DEFENDANT inquired
if he could retain his own attorney, and he was informed that
he could, but at no time did DEFENDANT object to Mr. McNair
Thompson's representation of him in these proceedings.
consideration of the assaultive nature of the allegations
against DEFENDANT, together with the nature of statements
made both on his financial affidavit and to Pretrial Services
and the observations of this Court, the Court ORDERS AS
1. That Pretrial Services, in coordination and with the
assistance of Mr. McNair Thompson, endeavor again to
interview DEFENDANT OU-YOUNG. The Court explained to
DEFENDANT that such an interview would provide a means of
establishing whether there were conditions upon which
DEFENDANT could be released pending trial;
2. That DEFENDANT undergo a mental evaluation at the
direction of Pre-trial Services pursuant to an order filed
herewith. The Court is informed that such an evaluation could
be completed within two weeks.
3. That DEFENDANT is remanded to the custody of the U.S.
MARSHALS pending the continued detention hearing.
the detention hearing is continued to May 23, 2017. In the
event that information becomes available prior to that date
that would inform detention proceedings, ...