Opinion
22-CV-6720 (LTS)
10-04-2022
VINTON P. FROST, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, SR. official capacity, 45th President of the United States, Defendant.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge.
Plaintiff brings this action pro se. By order dated June 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The complaint is dismissed for the reasons set forth below.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff previously submitted to this court a substantially similar complaint against Defendant, Donald J. Trump, Sr., regarding alleged events that occurred during Defendant's presidency. See Frost v. Trump, ECF 1:22-CV-6126, 2 (S.D.N.Y.). In both actions, Plaintiff claims that Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's attempts to retrieve documents from various federal agencies, and he seeks an apology from former President Trump. On July 29, 2022, the Court dismissed the prior action as barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, see 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), and directed Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be barred from filing further actions IFP without leave of court, see ECF 1:22-CV-6126, 7. As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not responded to the July 29, 2022, order.
For the same reasons set forth in the July 29, 2022, order, the Court dismisses all claims brought against the Defendant. The pending order to show cause will be addressed in the 22-CV-6126 action.
CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses the complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). A copy of the Court's July 29, 2022, order in Frost v. Trump, ECF 1:22-CV-6126, 2, is attached to this order.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions at ECF 7, 8, 11, and 12. The Clerk of Court is further directed to issue judgment in this case.
SO ORDERED.