Frost v. NYC MTA

Background

Yvonne Frost filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying court fees. The defendants named in the complaint were the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the New York City Police Department, the New York City Human Resources Administration, the Bronx Supreme Court, the White Plains S. Court, the USS District Court, the Yonkers Family Court, and Bronx Lebanon Hospital.

Frost invoked federal-question jurisdiction. She alleged that she had been treated differently and unfairly, denied her leisurely home and physical treatment, subjected to retaliation and personal vendettas, and harmed in various physical and personal ways. She asked the court to give her keys, order a caregiver to give her her son, and award compensation for damages, pain, suffering, and mental and physical distress.

The opinion also states that Frost had filed more than 30 actions in the court since September 16, 2019, mostly against New York City agencies. The court says that the complaints it had considered were dismissed as frivolous and that Frost had repeatedly been warned that further frivolous or harassing litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new cases without paying fees. On November 7, 2019, the court imposed that restriction. This case was filed before the restriction was imposed.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. The court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s pleading generously and consider the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Frost’s allegations reached the level of irrationality and that no legal theory supported them. It characterized the action as part of Frost’s pattern of vexatious, frivolous, and meritless litigation.

Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court explained that amendment is not required when it would be futile. It found that the defects in Frost’s complaint could not be cured by amendment and therefore declined to grant leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed Frost’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The November 7, 2019 restriction on Frost’s future filings without prior permission remained in effect. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the clerk to mail Frost the order and record service on the docket.