Feng v. Tripp
4:24-cv-07539
N.D. Cal.Jun 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Yvonne Ya-Wen Feng filed suit against Robert K. Tripp (FBI Special Agent) and other unnamed individuals, alleging a conspiracy involving the FBI and pharmaceutical companies to harm her and block her from patenting her medical invention.
- Feng claimed invention of a non-invasive therapeutic device and subsequent persecution, including physical attacks and interference with her professional and personal life.
- The complaint included claims under the RICO statute, federal civil rights statutes, defamation, and violations of constitutional amendments.
- Feng sought preliminary injunctions and judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) related to denials of her immigrant visa.
- Defendant Tripp moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the claims were frivolous under the substantiality doctrine.
- The Court considered both the motion to dismiss and plaintiff's pending motions, deciding all without a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | Feng has actionable federal claims and rights violations involving FBI conspiracies | Claims are implausible, insubstantial, and based on conspiracy theories | No jurisdiction; claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Standard for insubstantial claims | Claims sufficiently concrete for federal jurisdiction | Claims frivolous and barred by the substantiality doctrine | Claims too insubstantial for federal court |
| Preliminary injunction and APA review | Motion should be granted to prevent ongoing harm and review visa denials | Relief moot if case has no jurisdiction | Denied as moot |
| Leave to amend for pro se plaintiff | Plaintiff should have an opportunity to amend | Amendment would be futile, as claims are inherently frivolous | No leave to amend granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974) (federal courts lack power to entertain wholly insubstantial or frivolous claims)
- Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004) (lack of Article III standing requires dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Lucas v. Dep't of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (leave to amend for pro se litigants unless amendment is futile)
- Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 775 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1985) (courts lack power to decide merits after dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)