Frost v. NYC MTA

Background

Yvonne Frost, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the New York City Police Department, and the New York City Human Resource Administration. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged violations described as “differential treatment,” an effort to trick her out of her “leisurely place,” and “ownership denying freedom.” She identified the alleged events as occurring in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and New York from 2016 through the present. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages.

The opinion recounts allegations involving physical and sexual assault, medical problems, threats to Frost’s life, purported control of elevators and other locations, and people projecting information into her head. Frost also alleged injuries including visual and hearing decline, a head and chest blow, memory problems, sleepiness, falling, skin discoloration, and sexual assault.

The court noted 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 stated that the complaints it had considered had been dismissed as frivolous and that Frost had repeatedly been warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new cases without prepaying fees. On November 7, 2019, the court barred Frost from filing further actions without prepaying fees unless she first obtained permission. This action had been filed before that bar order.

Screening standard

Because Frost had been allowed to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also explained that it must read filings by people without lawyers generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggest.

A claim is frivolous when it lacks a reasonable basis in law or fact. The court stated that factual allegations may be frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible, and that a claim may also be frivolous when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Frost’s claims were irrational and that there was no legal theory supporting them, even after applying the more generous standard for filings by people without lawyers. It characterized the action as part of Frost’s continuing pattern of vexatious, frivolous, and meritless litigation in the court.

Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court stated 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.

Disposition

The court dismissed Frost’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It declined to grant leave to amend. The court’s November 7, 2019, restriction on Frost’s filing future actions without prepaying fees unless she first obtained permission remained in effect. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.