Frost v. NYC M.T.A.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09691
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Frost v. NYC MTA, Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s complaint as frivolous after screening and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Yvonne Frost’s complaint against NYC MTA and the City of New York (HRA) was dismissed; Frost was also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
Frost v. NYC MTA was brought by Yvonne Frost, who represented herself, against NYC MTA and the City of New York (HRA). Frost alleged that an MTA teller woke her at the Beverly Road station and told her to leave because no trains were running. She sought court orders and money damages.
The court allowed Frost to proceed without prepaying filing fees but dismissed her complaint as frivolous. It found that her claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court also declined to let her amend the complaint because it determined that the problems could not be fixed. The opinion noted that Frost had filed more than thirty cases in the court and had previously been barred from proceeding without prepaying fees unless she obtained permission.
Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the complaint was dismissed as frivolous under the federal statute governing fee-free cases. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYC M.T.A. · No. 1:19-cv-09691
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 15, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost, proceeding without a lawyer, sued NYC MTA and the City of New York (HRA) under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. She alleged “wrongful action” and “unfair treatment” occurring in New York, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. Her specific allegation concerned an October 18, 2019 incident at the Beverly Road station: she said an MTA teller woke her at about 11:50 p.m., told her that no trains were running on either side of the platform, and told her to leave the station. Frost requested declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages.
Screening and dismissal
The court granted Frost permission to proceed without prepaying court fees. Because she proceeded without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
The court stated that it had read Frost’s allegations generously but concluded that her claims were irrational and lacked any legal theory on which she could rely. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a defective complaint, the court declined to grant leave to amend because it found that amendment would be futile.
Additional filing-fee ruling and disposition
The opinion noted that Frost had filed more than thirty cases in the court between September 16, 2019, and November 6, 2019. It stated that, in a prior related proceeding, No. 1:19-CV-8936 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2019), the court had barred her from proceeding without prepaying fees unless she obtained leave of court.
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to assign the matter to her docket, mail Frost a copy of the order, and record service on the docket. The court dismissed Frost’s complaint as frivolous. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.