Frost v. NYPD
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09419
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Frost v. NYPD, Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s complaint as frivolous, denied fee status for an appeal, and continued a filing warning.
Yvonne Frost, whose complaint was dismissed as frivolous and who was denied fee status for an appeal; the order also maintained restrictions that could affect her future fee-free civil filings.
What happened
In Frost v. NYPD, Yvonne Frost sued the NYPD and other defendants without a lawyer, seeking court orders and money. She alleged unfair treatment, withheld information, denied hospital treatment, and government efforts to force her to move or harm her.
The court screened the complaint because Frost had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. It concluded that her allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court dismissed the action as frivolous and did not allow her to amend the complaint.
Judge Colleen McMahon also kept in place a warning that further frivolous or abusive lawsuits could lead to restrictions on Frost’s ability to file new civil cases without paying fees. The court denied fee status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYPD · No. 1:19-cv-09419
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 12, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost brought this federal-question action against NYPD and other defendants. She was representing herself and had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP. Frost sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and money damages.
On the complaint form, Frost identified the alleged violations as being denied her “leisurely house,” unfair treatment, withheld information, and denied hospital treatment. She listed locations in the Bronx, Brooklyn, New Jersey, and New York, and dates from 2016 through the present. Her additional allegations included claims that people connected with the government wanted her to move, that people were trying to harm her, and that the government was using other people to drive her insane.
Screening and ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), the court must dismiss a case filed by a person proceeding IFP if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court must read a self-represented person’s complaint liberally and consider the strongest claims the allegations suggest.
The court concluded that Frost’s claims were irrational and lacked any legal theory on which she could rely. It stated that an opportunity to amend is generally given to a self-represented plaintiff, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. Because the defects could not be cured by amendment, the court declined to grant leave to amend and dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Litigation history and additional orders
The court stated that Frost had filed more than thirty cases in that court between September 16, 2019, and November 6, 2019. Because of what it described as abuse of the privilege to proceed IFP, the court had directed her to show why she should not be barred from proceeding IFP unless she first obtained court permission. The court said that warning remained in effect: further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring Frost from filing new civil actions IFP without prior permission.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Frost, record service on the docket, and docket the order as a written opinion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.