Frost v. US SD Court
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10310
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Frost v. NYPD, Judge McMahon dismissed Frost’s frivolous complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.
Yvonne Frost’s action against NYPD and the other named defendants was dismissed; Frost was also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
Yvonne Frost sued NYPD and other defendants while representing herself. She alleged that a court had separated her from her children and described a woman taking money from her in a park. Frost had earlier received permission to file without paying court fees.
The court reviewed the complaint under the law governing fee-free filings. It concluded that Frost’s allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported her claims. The court also found that changing the complaint would not fix its defects.
In Yvonne Frost v. NYPD, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint, and ruled that Frost could not appeal without paying fees because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Frost v. US SD Court · No. 1:19-cv-10310
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 3, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost, appearing without a lawyer, sued NYPD and other defendants. The opinion states that the court had previously allowed Frost to proceed without paying filing fees. It also states that, in a prior related proceeding, the court had barred Frost from filing future civil actions without paying fees in this court unless she first obtained permission. That bar did not apply to this action because Frost filed it before the bar was issued.
Frost alleged that “it is the court that tore my children apart and away from me” and described an encounter with a woman in a park who allegedly took money from her through a financial transaction. The opinion does not identify a clearer legal claim arising from these allegations.
Legal standard
For a complaint filed without prepaying fees, the court must dismiss the complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable factual or legal basis. The court must read filings by people without lawyers liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that Frost’s allegations remained irrational even after applying the special consideration given to filings by people without lawyers. It further concluded that there was no legal theory on which Frost could rely. The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court explained that people representing themselves are generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. Because the defects in Frost’s complaint could not be cured by amendment, the court declined to grant leave to amend.
Disposition
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous. The court did not allow Frost to amend the complaint. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.