Frost v. D.O.H.R.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Frost v. D.O.H.R., Judge McMahon dismissed Frost’s complaint as frivolous during screening and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Yvonne Frost’s complaint was dismissed as frivolous, and her prior restriction on filing new cases without prepaying fees remained in effect; the court did not reach the merits of her allegations against DOHR, the NYPD, or the MTA.
What happened
Frost v. D.O.H.R. involved Yvonne Frost, who represented herself and sued the Division of Human Rights, the New York City Police Department, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. She claimed discrimination and described alleged stalking, attacks, and other incidents involving agency, police, and transit personnel.
The court reviewed the complaint under a law requiring dismissal of certain fee-free cases that are frivolous or legally insufficient. It found that Frost’s allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. The court dismissed the action as frivolous and declined to allow an amended complaint because amendment would be futile.
Judge Colleen McMahon left in place an earlier order barring Frost from filing new fee-free cases without prior permission. Judge McMahon also ruled that Frost could not appeal without prepaying the filing fees because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Frost v. D.O.H.R. · No. 1:19-cv-09186
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 12, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court had granted that request on November 8, 2019. Frost sued DOHR, identified in the opinion as the Division of Human Rights; the New York City Police Department; and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and described her claim as “discrimination/different treatment.”
The opinion states that Frost had filed more than 30 actions in the court since September 16, 2019, mostly against New York City agencies. The court had previously dismissed the complaints it had considered as frivolous and warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to a filing restriction. On November 7, 2019, the court barred Frost from filing additional actions without prepaying fees unless she first obtained permission. This action was filed before that bar order.
Claims
Frost alleged that people connected to DOHR stalked and targeted her, including at a subway platform near Lincoln Center. She also described alleged shootings or other attacks, conduct by New York City police officers, and alleged physical harm involving MTA employees. She sought compensation for pain and suffering, psychological distress, stress, and physical distress.
Court’s Analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a case filed without prepayment of fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. A frivolous claim lacks an arguable legal or factual basis. The court must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally, meaning it should interpret unclear allegations favorably when possible.
Even with that liberal reading, the court concluded that Frost’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It also characterized the action as part of Frost’s pattern of vexatious, frivolous, and meritless litigation. Because the defects could not be cured by amendment, the court 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 prior restriction on Frost’s future actions filed without prepaying fees remained in effect. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.