Frost v. NYC MTA

Background

Yvonne Frost, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a federal-question complaint against NYC MTA, the City of New York (HRA), and the U.S. District Court. She alleged that the defendants denied her “luxurious house,” treated her unfairly, retaliated against her, stalked her movements, caused others to harass her, and “babooned” her. She requested declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning court orders stating legal rights or requiring action, as well as money damages.

The court granted Frost’s request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion also states that Frost filed more than thirty cases in the court between September 16, 2019, and November 6, 2019, and that the court had previously barred her from proceeding without prepaying fees unless she obtained permission.

Court’s analysis

Because Frost was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal if a complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the pleading.

The court nevertheless concluded that Frost’s claims were “irrational” and had no legal theory supporting them. It determined that the defects could not be cured by an amended complaint and therefore declined to grant leave to amend. The court dismissed the action as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Frost’s complaint as frivolous. The court did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Frost the order and record service on the docket.