Frost v. Wilkinson

Filing 57

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Because the plaintiff has not amended his complaint by the deadline, the court dismisses this case. This dismissal is without leave to amend. With respect to Mr. Wilkinson, the plaintiff's FOIA claim is dismissed with p rejudice. The dismissal is otherwise without prejudice. Which is to say, apart from Mr. Wilkinson's status as an improper party, the court does not finally dispose of the plaintiff's FOIA claims on the merits. The clerk of court will close this file. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 8/3/2017. (lblc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

VINTON P. FROST,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 17-cv-01587-LB
ORDER DISMISSING CASE

v.
MONTY WILKINSON,
Defendant.

On July 5, 2017, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. (ECF No.

18

49.) The court gave the plaintiff until August 2, 2017, to name a proper defendant and to otherwise

19

show that his claim under the federal Freedom of Information Act is viable. (Id., passim.) The

20

plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Instead, on August 2nd, the plaintiff filed

21

“Objections” to the “Statement” section of the court’s dismissal. (ECF No. 56.) The plaintiff

22

appears to take issue with the court’s narrative recital of the events lying beneath his complaint. At

23

all lengths, the plaintiff writes: “Plaintiff does not object to dismissal of his claim[] without

24

prejudice.” (Id. at 1) (emphasis in original).

25

The handwritten caption on the plaintiff’s “Objections” includes the “U.S. Dept. of Justice” as

26

a defendant. The DOJ has never been named as a defendant in this suit. The original complaint

27

named only Mr. Wilkinson; and, again, the plaintiff has not filed a subsequent pleading —

28

including one that added new parties.
ORDER – No. 17-cv-01587-LB

1

Because the plaintiff has not amended his complaint by the deadline, the court dismisses this

2

case. This dismissal is without leave to amend. The FOIA claim against Mr. Wilkinson is

3

fundamentally ill-premised: as the court has already explained, Mr. Wilkinson is not a proper

4

FOIA defendant. With respect to Mr. Wilkinson, the plaintiff’s FOIA claim is dismissed with

5

prejudice. Given the leniency with which the Ninth Circuit treats pro se plaintiffs, and from an

6

abundance of caution, the dismissal is otherwise without prejudice. Which is to say, apart from

7

Mr. Wilkinson’s status as an improper party, the court does not finally dispose of the plaintiff’s

8

FOIA claims on the merits. The clerk of court will close this file.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated: August 3, 2017
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

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
ORDER – No. 17-cv-01587-LB

2