Frost v. Trump
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06126
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Frost v. Trump, Judge Swain dismissed Vinton Frost’s complaint as frivolous and barred by sovereign immunity while requiring him to explain why future fee-free filings should not be restricted.
Vinton Frost’s complaint was dismissed, and his ability to file future civil actions in the Southern District of New York without prepaying fees was placed at risk; Donald J. Trump was sued in his official capacity.
What happened
In Frost v. Trump, Vinton Frost sued Donald J. Trump in his official capacity over alleged problems involving Frost’s requests for information from federal agencies. Frost requested an apology.
The court dismissed the complaint, finding it frivolous and concluding that sovereign immunity generally prevents lawsuits against the federal government and federal officials sued in their official capacities unless immunity has been waived. The court also declined to allow Frost to amend the complaint.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Frost to explain within 30 days why he should not be barred from filing future cases without paying fees in that court unless he first receives permission. The court said it would impose that permanent restriction if Frost failed to respond or failed to show cause, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. Trump · No. 1:22-cv-06126
- Laura Swain
- July 29, 2022
Background
Vinton Frost filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, known as proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). He alleged that Donald J. Trump, sued in his official capacity as president, failed to carry out the law by knowing about or allowing an order that halted proceedings at the Department of Justice and other agencies. Frost connected those allegations to alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act and rules concerning the classification of national-security information requested from federal agencies. He requested an apology.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the screening requirement for IFP complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It concluded that, even reading Frost’s pro se complaint liberally, the complaint alleged no facts suggesting a plausible legal claim and was frivolous because it lacked a basis in law or fact.
The court also held that sovereign immunity barred the claims against the “46th president” and the White House for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Sovereign immunity generally prevents a federal court from hearing suits against the federal government, federal agencies, and federal officers sued in their official capacities unless immunity has been waived. The court stated that the facts alleged did not show that the Federal Tort Claims Act supplied a basis for Frost’s claims.
The court declined to grant leave to amend because Frost sought relief from an immune defendant and the defect could not be cured by amendment. The court also considered Frost’s litigation history, including prior related proceedings involving Freedom of Information Act claims and a prior warning from this court about possible restrictions on future IFP filings.
Disposition and show-cause order
The court dismissed the complaint as barred by sovereign immunity under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The opinion also states that the complaint was frivolous. The court ordered Frost to submit a declaration within 30 days explaining why it should not bar him from filing any future civil action in this court without paying filing fees unless he first obtained permission. The court stated that it would enter a permanent bar if Frost failed to comply or failed to show cause. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for an appeal.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.