Frost v. City of New York

Background

Yvonne Frost filed the action without a lawyer and invoked the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee. The defendants listed in the caption were City of New York (HRA), NYC ACS, NYC MTA, United States SD Court, Bronx Lebanon Hospital, CVR Associates, Inc., Bronx Supreme Court, Yonkers Family Court, White Plains Supreme Court, and NYPD.

Using the court’s general complaint form, Frost identified her alleged federal-rights violations as: “Deny me my leisurely place of aboard,” “unfair treatment,” and “withheld information.” She listed the places of occurrence as New Jersey, the Bronx, New York, and Brooklyn, and the period as 2016 through the present. The complaint included allegations about events on a subway platform, government conduct, keys, a house, and paperwork. Frost requested declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and money damages.

Screening standard

Because Frost was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court also stated that it had to read a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they reasonably suggest.

The court explained that a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible or when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory.

Ruling

The court held that Frost’s claims were irrational and that there was no legal theory on which she could rely, even after applying the more generous reading required for self-represented pleadings. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court declined to give Frost permission to amend the complaint because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also stated that Frost had filed 27 actions during the period identified in the opinion. It noted that an earlier order had barred her from filing future civil actions in that court without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained permission; the court said that bar remained in effect for this action.

Finally, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to appeal without prepaying the required fees. The opinion does not decide the merits of a legally supported underlying claim; it ends the case at the required screening stage.