Frost v. United States ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VINTON FROST, Case No. 19-cv-05365-JD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 20 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. 11 12 13 In a prior order, the Court denied pro se plaintiff Vinton Frost’s application to proceed in 14 forma pauperis, and dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 10. At 15 Frost’s request, the Court extended the deadline to amend by two months. Dkt. No. 16. Frost was 16 still late in filing the amended complaint, Dkt. No. 20, but the Court will allow it in light of his pro 17 se status. 18 The new complaint does not resolve the problems that led to the dismissal of the prior 19 complaint. Frost again focuses on three cases dismissed by other courts in this district and one 20 pending appeal, including Frost v. Steyer, 16-cv-05883-RS (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016); Frost v. 21 United States Department of Justice, 17-cv-01240-JCS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2017), appeal docketed, 22 No. 19-15579 (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2019); and Frost v. United States Department of Homeland 23 Security, 18-cv-0871-HSG (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2018). See Dkt. No. 20 at 3-5. Frost does not state 24 any new facts, or explain how this case is meaningfully different, if at all, from these dismissed 25 cases. 26 Consequently, despite the extra measure of consideration granted to Frost as a pro se 27 litigant, the second amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. See Nguyen Gardner v. 1 Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-CV-01514-JD, 2016 WL 7888025, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2 2016), aff'd, 715 F. App’x 737 (9th Cir. 2018). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: March 6, 2020 5 JAMESMPONATO 6 United Btates District Judge 7 8 9 10 ll a 12 13 14 15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28