Frost v. NYPD
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08705
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Frost v. NYPD, Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s complaint as frivolous, denied leave to amend, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Yvonne Frost’s action against NYPD, NYC MTA, and City of New York (HRA) was dismissed; Frost was also denied fee-free status for an appeal, and an earlier restriction on her future fee-free filings remained in effect.
What happened
In Frost v. NYPD, Yvonne Frost sued the NYPD, NYC MTA, and City of New York (HRA) over allegations involving a marriage, people on a train, and a job assignment she said put her in danger. She requested court orders and money damages.
Because Frost was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, the court reviewed her complaint to determine whether it was frivolous or stated a valid claim. The court said the allegations were irrational and did not identify a legal theory supporting relief.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint, and kept in place an earlier order limiting Frost’s ability to file future fee-free civil actions in that court. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYPD · No. 1:19-cv-08705
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 18, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost brought the action against NYPD, NYC MTA, and City of New York (HRA), invoking federal-question jurisdiction. She proceeded without a lawyer. The court had previously granted her permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Frost identified the place of the events as the Bronx, New York, and the date as September 17, 2019. Her complaint referred to a married person identified as “G,” asked the court to investigate, and requested an order preventing the unauthorized use of trademarks, pictures, or logos. She also alleged that people connected to G’s past relationships confronted her on a train while seeking money, that she was placed in danger, and that she was sent to a job without knowing its duties. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages, including compensation from NYC MTA.
Screening standard
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court said it had to read a self-represented person’s filing generously and consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.
A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. The court explained that allegations may be factually frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible, and legally frivolous when they rely on an indisputably meritless legal theory.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that, even when read with the special consideration given to filings by people without lawyers, Frost’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory on which she could rely. The court therefore determined that the complaint was frivolous.
Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court said amendment is not required when it would be futile. It found that the defects in Frost’s complaint could not be cured by amendment.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and declined to grant leave to amend. The court also stated that an earlier order barring Frost from filing future civil actions without prepaying fees in that court unless she first obtained permission remained in effect. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not identify a more specific legal cause of action for Frost’s allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.