Frost v. CVR Associates Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09185
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Frost v. CVR Associates Inc., Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s pro se action as frivolous and denied appeal fee-free status.
Yvonne Frost, whose action was dismissed as frivolous and who was denied fee-free status for an appeal; CVR Associates Inc. and the other defendants were affected by the dismissal.
What happened
In Frost v. CVR Associates Inc., Yvonne Frost, representing herself, filed an action against CVR Associates Inc. and other defendants after receiving permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court described allegations about opening a gate, money, keys, payments, a train, and statements by unidentified people.
The court said the allegations were irrational and did not support any legal theory, even when read liberally in light of Frost’s self-represented status. It also noted Frost’s history of filing frivolous and vexatious actions, although an earlier filing bar did not apply to this case because it was filed before that bar was issued.
Judge McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow Frost to amend because amendment would be futile, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. CVR Associates Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09185
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 26, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost filed this action against CVR Associates Inc. and other defendants while representing herself. On November 21, 2019, the court granted her request to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion also states that, because of Frost’s history of filing frivolous and vexatious actions, the court had barred her from filing future civil actions without first obtaining permission to proceed without paying fees. That bar did not apply to this action because Frost filed it before the bar was issued.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed by a person proceeding without paying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. At the same time, courts must read complaints filed by people representing themselves liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims the allegations suggest.
Frost alleged, among other things, that someone told her to open a gate, that money was flowing, and that she saw keys, payments, a train, and unidentified people. The court concluded that these allegations were irrational and that there was no legal theory on which Frost could rely. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous. It declined to give Frost permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be corrected through amendment. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.