Frost v. Oculus

Background

Yvonne Frost filed a complaint against Oculus and City of New York (HRA). She proceeded without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. On the complaint form, she identified the alleged federal rights violations as “Unfair treatment. Wrongful action.” She listed Brooklyn, New York, as the place of occurrence and October 16, 17, and 18, 2019, as the relevant dates.

Frost alleged that people wanted samples from her urine or menstrual cycle and wanted to become or touch her. She also alleged that, at Oculus, a person collected or intended to collect a bodily sample. The relief section requested immediate compensation, other relief described in the complaint, and the return of her key and children.

Legal standard

Because Frost was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis. The court also had to read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously and consider the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that, even when read generously, Frost’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court explained that people proceeding without lawyers are generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint. It declined to grant Frost that opportunity because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment.

Litigation history and additional orders

The court noted that Frost had filed more than ten actions without prepaying fees during a two-week period and had filed 27 actions between September 16 and October 21, 2019. Earlier orders had warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 barring her from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless she first obtained permission. The court stated that this warning remained in effect.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the complaint was dismissed with or without prejudice.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed as frivolous. The clerk was directed to mail Frost a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court also directed that the matter be docketed as a written opinion.