Frost v. Yonkers Family Court
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09184
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Frost v. Yonkers Family Court, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s complaint as frivolous after screening her fee-free filing.
Yvonne Frost’s complaint was dismissed as frivolous, she was not permitted to amend it, and fee-free status was denied for any appeal. The opinion did not adjudicate the defendants’ liability on the underlying allegations.
What happened
In Frost v. Yonkers Family Court, Yvonne Frost filed a federal complaint without a lawyer and asked for court orders and money damages. She listed several alleged harms, including favoritism, lack of treatment, and withheld information, and described attacks on her vision and being followed or taunted.
The court reviewed the complaint under the law governing cases filed without paying fees. It concluded that Frost’s allegations were irrational and did not support any legal claim. The court also found that amending the complaint would not fix its problems.
Chief Judge McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and did not allow Frost to amend it. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. Yonkers Family Court · No. 1:19-cv-09184
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 12, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost filed this action without a lawyer, invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction over federal questions. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees. She named Yonkers Family Court, United States District Court, Bronx Lebanon Hospital, White Plains Supreme Court, CVR Associates Inc., Bronx Supreme Court, City of New York (HRA), and NYC MTA as defendants.
On the complaint form, Frost identified alleged violations as “Denial of leisurely place of abode. Favoritism. No treatment. Withholding information.” She also alleged, among other things, that the government had changed two lightbulbs involving her eyes or vision, that her vision had been attacked, that someone photographed or video-recorded her and taunted her with jingling keys, and that she had been subjected to favoritism involving her former partner. She sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and money damages.
Screening standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without paying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court must also dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers liberally, those complaints must still provide enough factual detail to state a plausible claim.
A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis. The court explained that factual allegations may be considered 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 and ruling
The court held that, even when read generously, Frost’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment, so it declined to give Frost permission to file an amended complaint.
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The opinion further noted that Frost had filed more than thirty cases in the court between September 16, 2019, and November 6, 2019, and that a prior related proceeding had imposed restrictions on her ability to proceed without paying fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.