Frost v. City of New York

Background

Yvonne Frost sued the City of New York (HRA), CVR Associates Inc., the New York City Police Department, the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Bronx Lebanon Hospital, Bronx Supreme Court, Yonkers Family Court, United States S.D. Court, and White Plains Supreme Court. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that defendants denied her a place to live, denied her medical treatment, withheld information, and treated her unfairly. She identified the locations as North Jersey, New York, the Bronx, and Brooklyn, and the period as 2016 to the present.

The complaint also contained allegations about statements she said she heard, homelessness, government conduct, employment, people following her, and a vision in which someone cursed her. For relief, she asked the court or an assigned lawyer to move the matter from the Second Circuit to federal court.

Screening standard

The court had previously allowed Frost to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court was required to dismiss an action brought without prepaying fees if it was frivolous or malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from a defendant protected from that type of lawsuit. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the dispute.

Although courts must read filings from people without lawyers generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations, a claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. The court cited the standard that allegations may be factually frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible.

Ruling on the complaint

The court held that, even when read with the special consideration given to filings from people without lawyers, 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 also declined to give Frost permission to amend the complaint. Although courts generally allow an opportunity to amend to correct defects, the court found that amendment would be futile because the complaint’s defects could not be cured.

Litigation history and filing restriction warning

The court stated that Frost had filed more than ten actions without paying filing fees within a two-week period and had filed 27 actions from September 16 through 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 paying filing fees unless she first obtained court permission. The court said that warning remained in effect; this order did not itself state that the filing bar was imposed.

Other disposition

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Frost permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to assign the matter to the judge’s docket, mail Frost a copy of the order, and record service on the docket.

Bottom line

The complaint was dismissed as frivolous, leave to amend was denied, and fee-free status for an appeal was denied. The earlier warning concerning possible restrictions on future fee-free filings remained in effect.