Frost v. Office of the United States Attorney

Background

Vinton Frost represented himself in this case. The opinion states that he had filed 16 lawsuits in the Northern District of California since 2016, many involving allegations related to an incident at Stanford University, government surveillance, or the withholding of records. The court described many of those lawsuits as dismissed at an early stage, duplicative, or based on allegations and legal theories that had previously been rejected. The opinion also states that Frost had made more than 300 filings in the 16 cases, although Frost did not dispute or respond to that assertion in his opposition.

This lawsuit began after an earlier Freedom of Information Act case. In that earlier round, a declaration stated that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had no documents responsive to Frost’s request. Frost later filed this case alleging that the declaration’s author committed perjury. Before deciding the motion at issue here, the court had granted defendants’ motion to substitute the United States for the named defendants and to dismiss, and had denied Frost’s motion for sanctions.

Legal standard

The court explained that district courts have inherent authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to issue prefiling orders against vexatious litigants. A prefiling order requires a person to obtain court approval before filing specified new cases or complaints. The court cautioned that this is an extreme remedy that should be used rarely because it can interfere with a person’s right to access the courts.

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the court had to determine whether: (1) Frost received notice and an opportunity to oppose the order; (2) the court compiled an adequate record of his relevant filings; (3) his filings were frivolous or harassing; and (4) the order was narrowly tailored to the problem identified.

Analysis

The court found that Frost had notice and an opportunity to be heard because he filed a written opposition. The court stated that an in-person hearing was not required. It also found that the record was adequate because the opinion listed Frost’s prior lawsuits and relevant filings.

The court concluded that Frost’s litigation history met the requirement of frivolous or harassing filings. It relied on the number of lawsuits, the early dismissals of nearly all of them, repeated or duplicative claims, prior warnings from judges, and the burden imposed on courts and opposing parties. The court also found that Frost had sometimes failed to pursue his claims after receiving permission to amend and had continued filing lawsuits after judicial warnings. It stated that other sanctions had not deterred him and that a prefiling order was needed to prevent repeated litigation of the same matters.

Finally, the court found the restriction sufficiently narrow because it was limited to complaints against federal entities and current or former federal employees. The court therefore declared Frost a vexatious litigant.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to declare Frost a vexatious litigant and disposed of Docket No. 45. The clerk may not accept a complaint filed by or on behalf of Frost asserting claims against any federal entity or any current or former federal employee—including employees sued in their official or individual capacities—unless the complaint has first been reviewed and approved by the general duty judge.

To seek filing of such a complaint, Frost must provide the clerk with the complaint, a letter requesting filing, and a copy of the order. The order states that a violation may result in a contempt hearing and appropriate sanctions, and that an action filed in violation of the order may be dismissed.