Frost v. N.Y.P.D.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08595
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Frost v. N.Y.P.D., Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s pro se complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Yvonne Frost’s action against the N.Y.P.D., NYC M.T.A., City of New York (HRA), and Bronx Supreme Court was dismissed; her existing restriction on filing future fee-free civil actions in that court remained in effect.
What happened
In Frost v. N.Y.P.D., Yvonne Frost sued the N.Y.P.D., NYC M.T.A., City of New York (HRA), and Bronx Supreme Court. She sought declarations, court orders, and money damages based on alleged injuries occurring from 2016 onward.
Frost alleged, among other things, that the defendants blocked her path, caused her to become homeless, interfered with her children, denied her treatment and compensation, and involved her life and family-court matter in a television show.
The court concluded that the allegations were irrational and lacked a legal theory, dismissed the complaint as frivolous, and declined to allow an amended complaint. Judge McMahon also left in place an existing bar on future fee-free civil actions in that court and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. N.Y.P.D. · No. 1:19-cv-08595
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 18, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost, representing herself, sued the N.Y.P.D., NYC M.T.A., City of New York (HRA), and Bronx Supreme Court under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called in forma pauperis, or IFP.
Using the court’s general complaint form, Frost identified alleged violations as denial of a “leisurely place of aboard,” denial of more than $100 million in compensation, denial of rights to have and take her children, denial of treatment, and different treatment. She listed Brooklyn, the Bronx, New York, and New Jersey as places where events occurred and gave the period as 2016 to the present.
Frost alleged that multiple wrongs and injuries had occurred, that two people had a secret vendetta against her, and that the defendants had blocked her path and left her homeless. She also alleged that someone had placed her in a television game or show without an agreement, that police officers were involved, and that a family-court matter had been turned into a public television show. She sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and money damages.
Screening and ruling
When a person proceeds IFP, federal law requires the court to dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court must read a self-represented person’s complaint liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.
The court held that, even under that liberal standard, Frost’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court explained that an opportunity to amend is unnecessary when amendment would be futile, and it declined to grant Frost leave to amend because the defects could not be cured.
Additional orders
The court noted that Frost had filed 27 actions during the period identified in the opinion. It stated that an earlier order had barred her from filing future civil actions IFP in that court without first obtaining permission, and it ruled that the bar remained in effect for this action.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon also directed the clerk to 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.