Frost v. City of New York

Background

Yvonne Frost, representing herself, filed this action against the New York City Human Resources Administration, the New York City Police Department, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The opinion states that Frost had filed more than 30 actions in the Southern District of New York since September 16, 2019, mostly against New York City agencies. The court says it had dismissed the complaints it considered as frivolous and had repeatedly warned Frost that continued frivolous or harassing litigation could lead to restrictions on future fee-free filings. On November 7, 2019, the court barred her from filing additional actions without paying filing fees unless she first obtained permission. This action was filed before that bar order.

Claims and requested relief

Frost alleged that she had been treated unfairly and denied what she was “truly worth.” She identified the place of occurrence as “Staples New York” and the date as “9/19-9/20.” Her statement described being controlled and programmed, people “chopping and dicing,” emails from the city, unpaid and risky “priceless jobs,” and sleeping outside under a large black garbage bag. She alleged psychological damage, internal and external pain, an “off key sleeping pattern,” and an “unbearable headache.” She asked the court to access four city emails and award her five million dollars.

Court’s analysis

Because Frost was representing herself, the court was required to read her allegations generously and consider the strongest claims they suggested. But a complaint must be dismissed during fee-waiver screening if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant.

The court held that Frost’s allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. It characterized the action as part of her pattern of “vexatious, frivolous, and meritless litigation.” Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured.

Disposition

The court dismissed Frost’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and declined to give her permission to amend. The court’s November 7 bar on future fee-free filings without prior permission remained in effect. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Frost the order and record service on the docket.