Frost v. NYC M.T.A.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09886
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Frost v. NYC M.T.A., Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s pro se action as frivolous and denied leave to amend.
Yvonne Frost’s action against NYC M.T.A. and City of New York (HRA) was dismissed as frivolous; the court also denied her fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Frost v. NYC M.T.A., Yvonne Frost sued NYC M.T.A. and City of New York (HRA). She was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, but the court found her allegations irrational and lacking a legal basis.
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under the federal law governing fee-free lawsuits. It also declined to let Frost amend her complaint because the problems could not be fixed by amendment. The court said any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon issued the dismissal on December 23, 2019.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYC M.T.A. · No. 1:19-cv-09886
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 23, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost appeared without a lawyer and sued NYC M.T.A. and City of New York (HRA). The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion also noted that, in a prior related proceeding, the court had barred Frost from filing future civil actions without first obtaining permission, although that bar did not apply to this action because she filed it before the bar was issued.
Frost alleged that the defendants retaliated against her, sent her to places where others would steal from her, tried to scam her out of an inheritance, blocked her progress, confused and tortured her, and withheld her children from her. The opinion quoted additional statements about a “side deal partial house owner-ship,” a “perfect zip code,” and government officials who “must go.”
Legal Standard
Because Frost had been allowed to proceed without paying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or presented no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it had to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously and consider the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
A complaint is frivolous when it has no reasonable basis in fact or law. The court explained that factual allegations may be frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible, and that a claim may also be frivolous when it relies on a legally baseless theory.
Ruling
The court concluded that Frost’s claims were irrational and that she had no legal theory supporting them, even when the complaint was read generously. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be corrected through amendment.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.