Frost v. Steyer et al

Filing 40

ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915, WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND. Re: Dkt. Nos. 34 39 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 5/15/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

VINTON P. FROST,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
v.

12
13

ROBIN VASAN, and others,
Defendants.

14

Case No. 16-cv-05883 NC
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 1915, WITHOUT
FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND
Re: Dkt. Nos. 34, 39

15
16

This order is the Court’s screening review of Vinton Frost’s First Amended

17

Complaint, filed April 3, 2017. As explained below, the Court dismisses the First

18

Amended Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, finding that the complaint

19

is factually frivolous and fails to state a claim. Further attempted amendment would be

20

futile.

21

I.

Procedural Background

22

Frost is representing himself “pro se” without an attorney. The Court previously

23

found that he could not afford to pay the Court’s filing fees. Dkt. No. 8. Frost consented

24

to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. No. 6.

25

Frost’s original complaint charged twelve individual defendants, a United States

26

Senator, a university, two corporate entities, and additional unspecified defendants that

27

allegedly conspired with a secret elite group of businessmen and the CIA to torment Frost

28

since 2003. Dkt. No. 1. The Court dismissed Frost’s original complaint, finding it to be
Case No. 16-cv-05883 NC

1

factually frivolous; failing to state a claim for relief; and failing to satisfy the procedural

2

rules of pleading. Dkt. No. 8. Despite dismissing the complaint, the Court permitted Frost

3

leave to amend his complaint if he could cure the deficiencies in his initial complaint. Dkt.

4

No. 8.

5

Upon Frost’s motions, the Court twice extended the deadline for him to file an

6

amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 11, 22. Frost, seeking to stay the case, appealed to the

7

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but that court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to

8

review a non-final order. Dkt. No. 38. Ultimately, Frost timely filed his First Amended

9

Complaint. Dkt. No. 34.
II.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Legal Standard

This order is the Court’s second screening review for civil actions filed in forma

12

pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Having previously found the initial

13

complaint to be factually frivolous and legally deficient, this order assesses whether the

14

First Amended Complaint cures the shortcomings.

15

Pleadings by litigants representing themselves must be liberally construed.

16

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Furthermore, “the rule favoring liberality in

17

amendments to pleadings is particularly important for the pro se litigant.” Lopez v. Smith,

18

203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000).

19

A complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) is subject to a

20

mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal by the Court if the complaint is frivolous,

21

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief

22

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez, 203

23

F.3d at 1126-27. A complaint is “frivolous” if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or

24

in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A complaint may be dismissed as

25

“factually frivolous” only if the facts alleged are “clearly baseless,” which encompasses

26

allegations that are fanciful, fantastic and delusional. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct.

27

1728, 1733 (1992).

28

The IFP statute “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on
Case No. 16-cv-05883 NC

2

1

an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the

2

complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are

3

clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Examples of such claims include fantastic or

4

delusional scenarios. Id. at 328; see Suess v. Obama, 2017 WL 1371289, at *2 (C.D. Cal.

5

Mar. 10, 2017) (dismissing complaint alleging conspiracy among President, CIA, and FBI

6

to torment plaintiff over six year period); O’Diah v. State of Cal. Workers’ Comp. Bd.,

7

1993 WL 219323, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 1993) (dismissing complaint alleging

8

conspiracy among federal and state judges and their law clerks); Sierra v. Moon, 2012 WL

9

423483, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2012) (dismissing as factually frivolous an alleged
conspiracy by defendants with ex-military and CIA to defraud plaintiffs’ interests and

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

murder him); Demos v. United States, 2010 WL 4007527, at *2 (D. Ore. Oct. 8, 2010)

12

(dismissing complaint that alleged plaintiff was captured by pirates disguised as law

13

enforcement officers); Reid v. Mabus, 2015 WL 9855875, at *1 (D. Ore. Nov. 16, 2015)

14

(dismissing complaint alleging a massive conspiracy targeting 300,000 individuals with

15

“electronic harassment”).

16

III.

Analysis

17

Frost’s First Amended Complaint reduces the number of defendants and the

18

complexity of the narrative as compared to the original complaint. Frost alleges that

19

Stanford University, the city of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Police Department, and two

20

individuals who are executives with Silicon Valley finance businesses conspired against

21

him in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

22

As a starting point, that statute is a criminal statute providing for punishment of

23

conspiracies by two or more persons to “commit any offense against the United States, or

24

to defraud the United States.” The criminal statute, however, does not create a civil private

25

right of action. Willing v. Lake Orion Community Schools Bd. of Trustees, 924 F. Supp.

26

815 (E.D. Mich. 1996); Lamont v. Haig, 539 F. Supp. 552, 558 (D. S. Dakota 1982);

27

Fiorino v. Turner, 476 F. Supp. 962, 963 (D. Mass. 1979). In any case, Frost does not

28

allege that defendants have committed an offense against or defrauded the United States.
Case No. 16-cv-05883 NC

3

1

The gist of his complaint seems to be that defendants have conspired against him.

2

The core problem with the First Amended Complaint, just like the original

3

complaint, is that the factual allegations appear to be frivolous. Frost believes that there is

4

a vast conspiracy of businesses, universities, police, governments, and government

5

agencies against him.1 He asserts the conspirators drugged him, surveilled him, and stole

6

his medical files. Frost demands $200 million in compensatory damages. Dkt. No. 34.
I am sympathetic to the trauma described by Frost in both of his complaints. But I

7
8

find that the scenario he has described is the same type of fantastic and baseless allegations

9

dismissed by other courts. See Neitzke, Suess, O’Diah, Sierra, Demos, and Reid, cited

10

above.
Finally, on May 12, 2017, Frost filed a motion asking for leave to file a

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

supplemental pleading. Dkt. No. 39. The Court has considered that request. First, Frost

13

wishes to remove Stanford University as a defendant and replace it with the Board of

14

Trustees of Stanford University. The motion does not describe the factual basis for the

15

request. Second, Frost states he wishes to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985

16

“on the basis of de novo exclusion of rights protections as ‘federally homeless’ . . .” These

17

proposed amendments confirm the Court’s assessment that further amendment would be

18

futile.

19

IV.

Conclusion

20

“When a case may be classified as frivolous or malicious, there is, by definition, no

21

merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant leave to amend. Lopez, 203 F.3d

22

at 1127 n.8. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Frost’s amended complaint with prejudice

23

and without leave to amend. Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090, 1106 (9th Cir. 2011)

24

(affirming dismissal of RICO claim with prejudice and without leave to amend because it

25

failed to state a claim and was frivolous), overruled on other grounds as stated by Richey

26

v. Dahne, 807 F.3d 1202, 1209 n.6 (9th Cir. 2015); Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d

27
28

1

The Court takes notice of the pleadings filed by Frost in subsequent civil cases filed in
this District: 17-cv-1239 JCS; 17-cv-1240 JCS; 17-cv-1308 LB; and 17-cv-1587 LB.
Case No. 16-cv-05883 NC
4

1

336, 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (leave to amend may be denied where further amendment would

2

be futile). The Court will enter final judgment and terminate this case.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: May 15, 2017

7

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

8
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
Case No. 16-cv-05883 NC

5