Frost v. Office of the United States Attorney
- Edward Chen
- 3:19-cv-05190
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Frost v. Office of the United States Attorney, Judge Chen substituted the United States, granted dismissal, and denied Frost’s sanctions and Supreme Court-petition motions.
Vinton Frost and the individual defendants, who were replaced by the United States; the dismissal resolved Frost’s claims.
What happened
In Frost v. Office of the United States Attorney, Vinton Frost, representing himself, sued Sara Winslow and seven other defendants, most of whom were United States attorneys. The court considered the defendants’ request to replace the individual defendants with the United States and to dismiss Frost’s claims.
The court said Frost’s claims involved fraud and misrepresentation, which are barred against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It also said there is no private civil lawsuit for perjury and that Frost had not pleaded the alleged fraud with enough detail under the federal pleading rules.
Judge Edward Chen granted the defendants’ motions to substitute the United States and dismiss the case. He denied Frost’s motion for sanctions and his request for permission to petition the Supreme Court directly.
The detailed version
- Frost v. Office of the United States Attorney · No. 3:19-cv-05190
- Edward Chen
- Feb. 19, 2020
Background
Vinton Frost, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sara Winslow and seven other defendants, most of whom the opinion identifies as United States attorneys. The court addressed the defendants’ motion to substitute the United States for the individual defendants and to dismiss, Frost’s motion for sanctions, and Frost’s request for permission to petition the United States Supreme Court directly.
Substitution of the United States
The Attorney General, through the Chief of the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, certified that the individual defendants were acting within the scope of their employment concerning the matters alleged in the operative complaint. Based on that certification and 28 U.S.C. § 2679, the court granted defendants’ motion to substitute the United States for the individual defendants.
Dismissal
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on multiple grounds:
- The court concluded that Frost’s claims sounded in fraud and misrepresentation. It stated that claims against the United States for fraud or misrepresentation by a federal officer are barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act. - The court concluded that neither California nor federal law provides a private civil cause of action for perjury. - The court concluded that Frost had not pleaded the alleged fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires allegations to identify the who, what, when, where, and how of the fraud.
The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Other motions
The court denied Frost’s motion for sanctions, concluding that the conduct alleged did not warrant sanctions. The court also denied Frost’s request for leave of court to petition directly to the Supreme Court, stating that Frost had provided no supporting authority and that the court was aware of none indicating that such permission was appropriate.
The order stated that it disposed of Docket Nos. 31, 38, and 47.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.