Frost v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Background

Vinton P. Frost filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act against the United States Department of Homeland Security. The opinion states that Frost was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. On July 11, 2022, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Frost had not exhausted the administrative remedies required by the Freedom of Information Act before seeking judicial review.

The court had previously directed Frost to amend his complaint to show that he had completed that administrative process. Frost later told the court that he had filed a Freedom of Information Act request only after receiving that direction. He also requested more time to complete the administrative process and file an amended complaint. The court nevertheless dismissed the action because Frost had clarified that he had not exhausted his remedies before filing the case.

Motion and Analysis

Frost then filed a notice asserting that the court had denied him an opportunity to amend his complaint. The court treated the notice as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, and, alternatively, a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

For the Rule 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3 requests, the court explained that Frost had to show that it had overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that he had not made that showing. It concluded that the dismissal followed Frost’s clarification that he had not exhausted the required administrative remedies before bringing the action.

The court also found that Frost had not shown facts supporting the first five grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), or extraordinary circumstances supporting relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Because he presented no legal or factual matter calling the dismissal into question, the court denied the request for reconsideration.

Disposition

The court denied Frost’s notice as construed as a motion for reconsideration. It terminated all other pending matters and closed the action. The court directed the clerk not to accept further submissions under the closed case number, except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost’s fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.