Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05190/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05190-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINTON FROST,

Plaintiff,

v.

SARA WINSLOW, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-05190-EMC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUBSTITION AND 

DISMISSAL; AND DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS AND REQUEST FOR 

LEAVE TO PETITION DIRECTLY TO 

SCOTUS

Docket Nos. 31, 38, and 47

Plaintiff Vinton Frost, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against Civil Chief Sara 

Winslow and seven other defendants, most of whom are U.S. Attorneys. See Docket No. 1. On 

February 13, 2020, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and Defendants’ 

Motion for Substitution of Defendants and Dismissal. Each motion is discussed in turn, below.

Because the Attorney General, through the Chief of the Civil Division of the United States 

Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, has certified that the individual 

defendants in this case were acting within the course and scope of their employment with respect 

to the matters alleged in the operative complaint, see Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2679(d), Docket No. 38-2, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Substitute the United 

States for Defendants. See Arthur v. U.S. By & Through Veterans Admin., 45 F.3d 292, 295 (9th 

Cir. 1995) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2679(c)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d). 

In addition, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; there are multiple 

grounds for doing so. First, “claims against the United States for fraud or misrepresentation by a 

federal officer are absolutely barred” under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Kim v. United States, 

940 F.3d 484, 492 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Owyhee Grazing Ass’n, Inc. v. Field, 637 F.2d 694, 

Case 3:19-cv-05190-EMC Document 49 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

697 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also 28 U.S.C.A. § 2680(h). Because Mr. Frost’s claims sound in fraud 

and misrepresentation, his claims against the United States are barred. Second, there is no private 

right of action for perjury under California or federal law. See, e.g., Pollock v. Univ. of S. 

California, 112 Cal. App. 4th 1416, 1429, (2003) (“There is no civil cause of action for perjury. 

Perjury is a criminal wrong.”); Xunxian Liu v. Bushnell, No. CV TDC-17-1398, 2018 WL 

3093974, at *13 (D. Md. June 22, 2018), aff’d sub nom. Xunxian Liu v. Azar, 742 F. App’x 748 

(4th Cir. 2018) (explaining that neither 28 U.S.C. § 1746, which outlines the federal requirements 

of unsworn declarations made under penalty of perjury, nor 18 U.S.C. § 1621, which provides for 

federal criminal enforcement of 28 U.S.C. § 1746, contemplates a private right of action). Third, 

Plaintiff has failed to plead his claims with sufficient particularity to meet the heightened pleading 

standard of Rule 9(b). As noted above, the Complaint must allege “the who, what, when, where, 

and how of the fraud.” See Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 889 F.3d 956, 964 (9th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 139 S. Ct. 640 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Frost’s complaint does not 

adequately do so. 

Turning to Plaintiff’s motions, the Court finds that nothing alleged in Mr. Frost’s Motion 

for Sanctions, even if accepted as true, constitutes an action severe enough to merit sanctions. As 

the Court’s Guidelines for Professional Conduct—upon which Plaintiff relies for his Motion—

note, the Court does not “anticipate that these Guidelines will be relied upon as the basis for a 

motion.”1 It is true that the Guidelines may, in extreme circumstances, furnish a basis for the 

imposition of sanctions. See, e.g., Claypole v. Cty. of Monterey, No. 14-CV-02730-BLF, 2016 

WL 145557, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) (where “an attorney repeatedly and unapologetically 

flouts guideline after guideline, it is a big deal—and the court has little choice but to do something 

about it”). However, the conduct alleged here, even if accepted as true, does constitute 

sufficiently extreme circumstances to merit sanctions. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Sanctions. 

1 Guidelines for Professional Conduct, U.S. District Court – Northern District of California, 

https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/guidelines-for-professional-conduct/ (last visited Feb. 19, 

2020). 

Case 3:19-cv-05190-EMC Document 49 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Lastly, on February 14, 2020, the day after the hearing, Mr. Frost filed a motion seeking 

leave of the Court to directly petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review of this Court’s holding. 

Mr. Frost has provided no authority—and the Court is aware of no authority—that indicates that 

leave to file such a petition would be appropriate. As a result, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s 

Request for Leave of Court to Petition Directly to SCOTUS. 

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 31, 38, and 47. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-05190-EMC Document 49 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 3