The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 KHOR CHIN LIM, Case No. 25-cv-04635-JSC
8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
v.
9
10 NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF LAW
EXAMINERS, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
INTRODUCTION
13
Plaintiff, who is detained at the Mendota Mental Health Institute in Wisconsin and is
14
proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil action. He has been granted leave to proceed in
15
forma pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, this case is DISMISSED.
16
STANDARD OF REVIEW
17
Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek
18
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §
19
1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of
20
the complaint, if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief
21
may be granted,” or “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Id.
22
§ 1915A(b). Pleadings filed by unrepresented parties must be liberally construed. Balistreri v.
23
Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
24
Section 1915(e)(2) provides that the court “shall” dismiss any case brought in forma
25
pauperis “if the court determines” the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon
26
which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
27
relief. Section 1915(e)(2) is not limited to prisoners or to suits against governmental defendants.
1
Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001).1
2
LEGAL CLAIMS
3
The claims and defendants in this case were included in a complaint filed in a prior case
4
that was dismissed as frivolous and without leave to amend. See Lim v. New York State Board of
5
Law Examiners, et al., No. C 25-cv-02660 HSG (ECF Nos. 1, 14, 21, 22.) As explained in that
6
case:
7 As demonstrated by the attachments to his present Complaint
(ECF No. 1), Plaintiff has previously filed many other cases in many
8 other courts. He does not appear to have met with success. The
Eastern District of Wisconsin found an apparently similar complaint
9 that Plaintiff filed in 2021 to be frivolous, and noted that the
Western District of Wisconsin reached the same conclusion in
10 several previous cases:
11 The complaint is largely incomprehensible but does make
out a general laundry list of grievances against each
12 defendant for wrongs ranging from a bad grade on an
economics quiz in 1996, ECF No. 1 ¶ 34, to a massive
13 conspiracy by several jurists, police officers, prosecutors,
public defenders, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase, and
14 President Barack Obama to wrongly convict Lim of
possession of Molotov cocktails and prevent his appeal, ECF
15 No. 1 ¶ 33. The list goes on, and there are several more
allegations, each as fantastical as the next. Furthermore, Lim
16 has a history of filing frivolous lawsuits. E.g., Lim v. City of
Chicago, No. 13-CV-347-BBC, 2013 WL 3967889, at *1
17 (W.D. Wis. July 31, 2013) (“[Lim] is restricted from filing
new cases without paying the full filing fee because he has
18 filed at least three cases in this court that have been deemed
frivolous.”).
19
Lim v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, No. 21-CV-1277-SCD, 2021
20 WL 11586133, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 16, 2021), recommendation
adopted, 2021 WL 11586132 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 1, 2021).
21
One might reasonably wonder what this action, where the
22 first defendant to appear in the caption is the New York State Board
of Law Examiners, has to do with a prior case against former
23 President Barack Obama and JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon.
But Obama and Dimon are also named as defendants here, among
24
25
1 It is not clear from the complaint which of the above screening provisions apply here because the
26 complaint does not indicate whether Plaintiff is involuntarily detained in a mental health facility or
whether he is there voluntarily. This need not be resolved, however, because under either of the
27 above screening provisions, for the reasons discussed below, the case is duplicative and therefore
must be dismissed as frivolous.
1 hundreds of other people and entities, including—to name a very
small sample of them—the People Action Party of Singapore, the
2 accounting firm Deloitte & Touche, the Government of Malaysia,
the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, 24
3 Hour Fitness, the City of Santa Monica, Microsoft, Georgia election
workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, and apparently
4 most if not all Democratic members of Congress. The caption alone
of Plaintiff’s Complaint runs seventeen pages long, and the
5 description of parties continues to page sixty-three.
6 Like in the Wisconsin case, to the extent that the Complaint
here is intelligible, it is a comprehensive list of grievances and
7 misfortunes over multiple decades of Plaintiff’s life. The events at
issue range from legal proceedings in Southeast Asia in the early
8 1990s, through Plaintiff failing nursing exams at the University of
Dubuque in Iowa in the early 2000s, through several car accidents in
9 Northern California in the last few years, among many other
incidents. See Compl. at 69–71. To the extent Plaintiff asserts that
10 the hundreds of defendants he has named conspired together or
acted in concert, his allegation to that effect are conclusory.
11 Moreover, the underlying implication that bribery by associates of
Lee Kuan Yew (a former Prime Minister of Singapore), see Compl.
12 at 68, is behind Plaintiff’s criminal prosecutions, failures to pass
multiple professional examinations, car accidents, rejection by
13 universities, and various other troubles in the United States, appears
to be fanciful.1 That sort of implausible conspiracy theory suggests
14 that the Complaint is “frivolous” within the meaning of §
1915(e)(2)(B), see Denton, 504 U.S. at 32–33, as does Plaintiff’s
15 “extreme failure to comply with the rules for joinder,” see Cooney,
2018 WL 11249355, at *3.
16
The relief that Plaintiff seeks is similarly scattered, including
17 (as but a few examples): a declaration that all “election results
obtained by Republican Party candidates in the 2024 General
18 election are invalid,” rendering Kamala Harris the winner of the
presidential election by default id. at 73, ¶ 1; an order requiring
19 Malaysian Prime Minister Anway Ibrahim to tender his resignation,
id. at 75, ¶ 13; “An injunction restraining arms manufacturer as
20 follows [sic; none are listed] from supplying arms to Israel, Ukraine,
and province of Taiwan,” id. at 75, ¶ 18; a declaration that Plaintiff
21 is actually innocent of criminal charges to which he pled guilty in
2013, id. at 75, ¶¶ 19– 20; “A Declaration that plaintiff has passed
22 the Nursing Board Exams and is registered as a Registered Nurse in
the State of his choice,” id. at 76, ¶ 23, and an injunction prohibiting
23 author E. Jean Carroll from opposing any appeal or application by
President Donald Trump regarding the judgments entered in
24 Carroll’s favor against him, id. at 78–79, ¶ (E). Plaintiff’s requests
for relief that have no apparent connection to Plaintiff himself (or to
25 his factual allegations) reinforces the Court’s conclusion that the
Complaint is frivolous.
26
Id. (ECF No. 22 at 3-5).
27
1
An in forma pauperis complaint that merely repeats the same factual allegations and claims
2
asserted in an earlier case may be considered abusive and dismissed as frivolous. See Cato v.
3
United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021
4
(5th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff here merely repeats factual allegations and claims he asserted in his prior
5
case. This case is therefore subject to dismissal as duplicative.
6
CONCLUSION
7
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice and
8
without leave to amend. In light of this conclusion, Plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining
9
order are DENIED.
10
The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
11
This order terminates docket numbers 2 and 9.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 29, 2024
v 14
15
ne
16
JAYQUBLINE SCOTT CORLE
United States District Judge
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28