Frost v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09692
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Frost v. City of New York, Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s complaint as frivolous, denied amendment, and denied fee-free appeal status.
Yvonne Frost’s complaint was dismissed as frivolous, she was not allowed to amend it, and she was denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The ruling affected the City of New York (HRA) and the other named defendants because the action against them was dismissed.
What happened
In Frost v. City of New York (HRA), Yvonne Frost, representing herself, sued the City of New York (HRA) and others. The court had allowed her to file without paying fees in advance.
Frost alleged that government employees controlled her life and money, imprisoned her, experimented on her, took her children and compensation money, and interfered with her family. The court found these allegations irrational and found no legal theory supporting the action.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous, declined to allow Frost to amend it, and denied her permission to appeal without paying fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Frost v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09692
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 26, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost, appearing without a lawyer, sued the City of New York (HRA) and other defendants. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Frost filed this action before an earlier order took effect barring her from filing future civil actions without paying fees unless she first obtained permission from the court.
Screening standard
The court explained that it must dismiss a case filed without advance payment of fees if the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. The court also said it must read filings by people without lawyers generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims the allegations suggest. A claim is frivolous when it has no reasonable basis in fact or law.
Court’s analysis
Frost alleged that government employees decided what to do with her life and how to spend her money. She also alleged that they were holding her as a prisoner, experimenting on her, taking her children, blocking her paths, damaging her family relationships, taking her compensation money, and often failing to respond. Even when read generously, the court found these allegations irrational and found no legal theory on which Frost could rely.
The court stated that people representing themselves are generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but that amendment is not required when it would be futile. It concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Frost’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court declined to grant leave to amend. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to appeal without paying fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.