VINTON FROST V. USDOJ, ET AL, No. 20-17524 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VINTON P. FROST, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-17524 D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01240-JCS MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; MELANIE ANN PUSTAY; SEAN O’NEILL; OFFICE OF INFORMATION POLICY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted December 8, 2022*** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Vinton P. Frost appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) action arising out of the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) responses to his requests for records. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 836 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Frost failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the DOJ did not “conduct[ ] a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents.” Hamdan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 797 F.3d 759, 770 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); id. at 770-71 (requirements for demonstrating adequacy of a search for documents in response to a FOIA request). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Frost’s motions for appearances and oral argument (Docket Entry Nos. 28 and 29) are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 20-17524

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.