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
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?