Vinton P. Frost v. United States Department of Justice

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VINTON P. FROST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; MELANIE ANN PUSTAY;
SEAN O’NEILL; OFFICE OF
INFORMATION POLICY,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17524
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01240-JCS
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17524
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 of 2 --