Huang v. Hanks

California Court of Appeal May 10, 2018 No. C084702Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's requests for civil harassment restraining orders, holding that the trial court properly exercised its inherent authority to dismiss claims that are patently frivolous, delusional, or fanciful.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly exercised its inherent authority to dismiss the appellant's requests for restraining orders as frivolous.
Whether the appellant demonstrated reversible error regarding the trial court's refusal to allow evidence, the performance of the interpreter, or judicial bias.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“California courts possess the inherent authority to dismiss cases that are fraudulent or ‘vexatious.’”

“the trial court here “retain[ed] flexibility to exercise historic inherent authority . . . [to] fashion[] [a] remed[y] as necessary to protect [defendants’] rights””

“appellant’s frivolous claims that cannot avoid being categorized as “fantastic,” “delusional,” or “fanciful.””

Filed 5/10/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

HAN JING HUANG, C084702 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. v. 34201770001796CUHRGDS)

TOM HANKS, Defendant and Respondent.

[And 30 other cases.]*

* Huang v. Sheen (No. C084703); Huang v. BinBing (No. C084704); Huang v. Yun-Fat (No. C084706); Huang v. Spears (No. C084707); Huang v. Winslet (No. C084708); Huang v. Neeson (No. C084709); Huang v. Cage (No. C084710); Huang v. Cruise (No. C084711); Huang v. West (No. C084714); Huang v. Ford (No. C084715); Huang v. Bale (No. C084716); Huang v. Molina (No. C084718); Huang v. Carrey (No. C084719); Huang v. Franco (No. C084721); Huang v. Ciccone (No. C084723); Huang v. Fenty (No. C084724); Huang v. Lama (No. C084725); Huang v. Cameron (No. C084726); Huang v. Lopez (No. C084727); Huang v. Chan (No. C084729); Huang v. Schwarzenegger (No. C084730); Huang v. DeVito (No. C084731); Huang v. Barrymore (No. C084732); Huang v. DiCaprio (No. C084733); Huang v. Stallone (No. C084734); Huang v. Zuckerberg (No. C084735); Huang v. Bay (No. C084736); Huang v. Witherspoon (No. C084737); Huang v. Lewinsky (No. C084738); Huang v. Spielberg (No. C084739).

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, David F. De Alba, Judge. Affirmed.

Han Jing Huang, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Reed Smith, Kasey J. Curtis and Carla M. Wirtschafter for Defendant and Respondent Robyn Rhianna Fenty in case No. C084724.

Keker, Van Nest & Peters and Paven Malhotra for Defendant and Respondent Mark Zuckerberg in case No. C084735.

Harder Mirell & Abrams, Harder, Douglas E. Mirell, Jordan D. Susman and Steven H. Frackman for Defendant and Respondent Steven Spielberg in case No. C084739.

Appellant filed requests for civil harassment restraining orders against defendants former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Dalai Lama, Mark Zuckerberg, Monica Lewinsky, and 27 prominent entertainment personalities. Finding appellant’s claims to be “patently frivolous,” “patently frivolous on petition[’s] face,” or “frivolous on petition’s face,” the trial court denied with prejudice the applications for permanent injunctions prohibiting harassment. Notices of appeal were filed on May 2, 2017. We have consolidated the 31 appeals for disposition. In the 31 cases, appellant alleges that defendants are “a lot of people with Hollywood background or Scientology background . . . or political background,” who “control[ a] mental department in Texas,” by which “they falsely accuse[ him] and use[] technology from mental department (mind reading) [to] attack[ him] secretly[,] . . . ask[ing] some adults to keep on stalking [him] and harass[ing] and threaten[ing him] by nano probes.” Appellant further alleges that defendants “use[] nano probes (if use[d] in brain - it can mind-read) to control adults[’] act[ions], [to] threaten people[, and] by this way, they can set trick to peaceful people and attack them[,] and threaten them, [and] they can rob money from peaceful people.” Appellant concludes by alleging that defendants “attacked [his] mouth, and destroyed [the] inner skin of [his] mouth, the inner

Huang v. Hanks

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

RAYE , P. J.

ROBIE , J.

BUTZ , J.

AI Brief