Frost v. City of New York

Background

Yvonne Frost, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York (HRA) and other defendants. The opinion says that the court had previously allowed Frost to proceed without paying the filing fee and had barred her from filing any future action without first obtaining permission from the court.

Frost alleged that she had asked the government for “twenty games with my key and more games with my babies,” called the matter an emergency, asked where her children were, and claimed that people wanted money to release them. She also alleged that she saw a young man on a train whom she knew was “the reverse” of her.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed without prepayment of fees. Those rules require dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

The court explained that a complaint is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Even after reading Frost’s allegations liberally, as courts generally do for people representing themselves, the court concluded that her claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court also described the action as part of Frost’s pattern of vexatious, frivolous, and meritless litigation in that court.

Ruling

The court dismissed Frost’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It declined to give her permission to amend because it concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Frost a copy of the order and record service on the docket.