Frost v. United States Department of Justice
Filing
21
ORDER REVIEWING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ORDERING SERVICE OF THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on June 28, 2017. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/28/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (klhS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
VINTON P. FROST,
Case No. 17-cv-01240-JCS
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, et al.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Defendants.
ORDER REVIEWING SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
ORDERING SERVICE OF THE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ON
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
12
13
14
15
On May 15, 2017, the Court issued an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 reviewing
16
Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on March 30, 2017. The FAC asserts claims
17
under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, based on the FBI’s response to a
18
FOIA request addressed to it in which Plaintiff requested records about himself (“the FBI
19
Request”). In the Order, the Court identified certain deficiencies and gave Plaintiff leave to
20
amend as to some claims. In the meantime, on May 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document in this case
21
styled as a “supplemental complaint.” See Docket No. 11. That document asserts FOIA claims
22
based on a different FOIA request seeking records from the Office of the Attorney General (“the
23
Office of the Attorney General FOIA Request”). Plaintiff received a response to that request in a
24
letter dated March 16, 2017 and a letter rejecting his administrative appeal dated April 28, 2017,
25
after he had filed his FAC. See Supplemental Complaint, Exs. A-C. In his supplemental
26
complaint, like his FAC, Plaintiff named Department of Justice as a defendant, among others.
27
Because both claims involve the same defendant, it is permissible for Plaintiff to join them in a
28
single action, even though they are based on different FOIA requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 18(a);
1
Hicks v. Matevousian, No. 116CV01440JLTPC, 2017 WL 1837258, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2017)
2
(noting that Rule 18(a) “permits the joinder of multiple claims against the same party.”).
3
Nonetheless, should Plaintiff seek to assert any additional claims based on other FOIA requests
4
that are not addressed in the SAC, he is instructed to file any such claims as separate actions rather
5
than in this action in order to allow the instant action to move forward.
6
Although the Court did not directly address the claims in the supplemental complaint when
7
it conducted its initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the principles set forth in its May 15, 2017
8
Order are applicable to those claims. Plaintiff has now filed a Second Amended Complaint
9
(“SAC”) asserting claims against the Department of Justice based on both FOIA Requests. In
doing so, he has remedied the deficiencies the Court identified in its May 15, 2017 Order as to the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
claims based on the FBI Request and has also amended his claims based on the Office of the
12
Attorney General FOIA Request consistent with the Court’s guidance. The Court finds that the
13
claims set forth in Plaintiff’s SAC are sufficient to survive initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915
14
except in one respect. As the Court explained it its May 15, 2017 order, FOIA claims may be
15
asserted only against an “agency.” Based on that principle, the Court dismissed with prejudice
16
Plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants named in the FAC. The Court inadvertently
17
failed to dismiss the Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) in its previous order, but the same
18
principle applies to it. See Gordon v. Courter, 118 F. Supp. 3d 276, 282 (D.D.C. 2015)
19
(dismissing OIP in FOIA action on the basis that it is not a proper defendant). Therefore, the
20
Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all claims asserted in the SAC against OIP.
21
Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Clerk is ORDERED to issue summons
22
as to Department of Justice. The U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California is
23
ORDERED to serve a copy of each of the following documents on Defendant: (1) summons; (2)
24
the First Amended Complaint, Supplemental Complaint and the Second Amended Complaint
25
(Docket Nos. 7, 11 and 13); (3) the Court’s May 15, 2017 1915 Review (Docket No. 12); (4) the
26
Initial Case Management Scheduling Order (Docket No. 4); and (5) a copy of this Order. The
27
Court further orders that within thirty days (30) of service, the Department of Justice shall
28
initiate efforts to meet and confer with Plaintiff in order to develop a joint proposed
2
1
schedule for the case, which shall be submitted to the Court for approval within 60 days of
2
service.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: June 28, 2017
6
7
8
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?