United States District Court, N.D. California
VINTON P. FROST, Plaintiff,
ROBIN VASAN, and others, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER 28
U.S.C. § 1915, WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO AMEND RE: DKT.
NOS. 34, 39
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge.
order is the Court's screening review of Vinton
Frost's First Amended Complaint, filed April 3, 2017. As
explained below, the Court dismisses the First Amended
Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend, finding
that the complaint is factually frivolous and fails to state
a claim. Further attempted amendment would be futile.
is representing himself “pro se” without an
attorney. The Court previously found that he could not afford
to pay the Court's filing fees. Dkt. No. 8. Frost
consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). Dkt. No. 6.
original complaint charged twelve individual defendants, a
United States Senator, a university, two corporate entities,
and additional unspecified defendants that allegedly
conspired with a secret elite group of businessmen and the
CIA to torment Frost since 2003. Dkt. No. 1. The Court
dismissed Frost's original complaint, finding it to be
Case No. 16-cv-05883 NC factually frivolous; failing
to state a claim for relief; and failing to satisfy the
procedural rules of pleading. Dkt. No. 8. Despite dismissing
the complaint, the Court permitted Frost leave to amend his
complaint if he could cure the deficiencies in his initial
complaint. Dkt. No. 8.
Frost's motions, the Court twice extended the deadline
for him to file an amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 11, 22.
Frost, seeking to stay the case, appealed to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, but that court determined that it
lacked jurisdiction to review a non-final order. Dkt. No. 38.
Ultimately, Frost timely filed his First Amended Complaint.
Dkt. No. 34.
order is the Court's second screening review for civil
actions filed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Having previously found the initial complaint
to be factually frivolous and legally deficient, this order
assesses whether the First Amended Complaint cures the
by litigants representing themselves must be liberally
construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007). Furthermore, “the rule favoring liberality in
amendments to pleadings is particularly important for the pro
se litigant.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1131 (9th Cir. 2000).
complaint filed by any person proceeding in forma pauperis
(IFP) is subject to a mandatory and sua sponte review and
dismissal by the Court if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27. A complaint is
“frivolous” if it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). A complaint may be
dismissed as “factually frivolous” only if the
facts alleged are “clearly baseless, ” which
encompasses allegations that are fanciful, fantastic and
delusional. Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728,
statute “accords judges not only the authority to
dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal
theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the
complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. Examples of such claims
include fantastic or delusional scenarios. Id. at
328; see Suess v. Obama, 2017 WL 1371289, at *2
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2017) (dismissing complaint alleging
conspiracy among President, CIA, and FBI to torment plaintiff
over six year period); O'Diah v. State of Cal.
Workers' Comp. Bd., 1993 WL 219323, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
May 12, 1993) (dismissing complaint alleging conspiracy among
federal and state judges and their law clerks); Sierra v.
Moon, 2012 WL 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 murder him); Demos v.
United States, 2010 WL 4007527, at *2 (D. Ore. Oct. 8,
2010) (dismissing complaint that alleged plaintiff was
captured by pirates disguised as law enforcement officers);
Reid v. Mabus, 2015 WL 9855875, at *1 (D. Ore. Nov.
16, 2015) (dismissing complaint alleging a massive conspiracy
targeting 300, 000 individuals with “electronic
First Amended Complaint reduces the number of defendants and
the complexity of the narrative as compared to the original
complaint. Frost alleges that Stanford University, the city
of Palo Alto, the Palo Alto Police Department, and two
individuals who are executives with Silicon Valley finance
businesses conspired against him in violation of 18 U.S.C.
starting point, that statute is a criminal statute providing
for punishment of conspiracies by two or more persons to
“commit any offense against the United States, or to
defraud the United States.” The criminal statute,
however, does not create a civil private right of action.
Willing v. Lake Orion Community Schools Bd. of
Trustees, 924 F.Supp. 815 (E.D. Mich. 1996); Lamont
v. Haig, 539 F.Supp. 552, 558 (D. S. Dakota 1982);
Fiorino v. Turner, 476 F.Supp. 962, 963 (D. ...