UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK YVONNE FROST, Plaintiff, -against- YONKERS FAMILY COURT; UNITED STATES 19-CV-9184 (CM) D.S. COURT; BRONX LEBANON HOSPITAL; ORDER OF DISMISSAL WHITE PLAINS SUPREME COURT; CVR ASSOCIATES INC.; BRONX SUPREME COURT; CITY OF NEW YORK (HRA); NYC MTA, Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. By order dated October 17, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below. STANDARD OF REVIEW The court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B); see Abbas v. Dixon,

(2d Cir. 2007). The court must also dismiss a complaint if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills,

(2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases,

(citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

The Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly,

. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the court must determine whether those facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief.

A claim is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992) (holding that “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible”); Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co.,

(2d Cir. 1998) (“[A]n action is ‘frivolous’ when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). BACKGROUND Plaintiff drafted this complaint using the general complaint form provided by this Court. After checking the box on the form to indicate that she invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, she lists the following (in the section in which she is asked to indicate which of her federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated): “Denial of leisurely place of abode. Favoritism. No treatment. Withholding information.” (Compl. at 2.)1 Plaintiff continues:

Government view me as one of their biggest problem presently. Government already have their share of problems. The government made a move — the final straw — change two (2) lightbulbs (eyes/vision). I heard one person say, “When you finish close the gate.” It was the second time my vision was attacked on a large scale. Often times my vision was attacked on smaller levels. One time the government wanted to buy the owl in the tree and asked if I was selling it. Last night after completing a job at Oculus I was photographed and video — around [sic] and taunting me with jingling keys. You have given me the run around with roads leading to nowhere. You have given me the run around by/with no show. You have given me the run around by using my ex to show favoritism over me i.e. belittle me — give him power. I am holding you accountable. I am demanding better service. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and money damages. (Id. at 11-12.) DISCUSSION Even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman,

, Plaintiff’s claims rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory on which she can rely. See Denton,

; Livingston,

. District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione,

(2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo,

(2d Cir. 1988).

1 Page numbers refer to those generated by the Court’s electronic case filing system. Because the defects in Plaintiffs complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend and dismisses the action as frivolous. See

(e)(2)(B)@). Between September 16, 2019, and November 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed more than thirty cases in this Court. Because Plaintiff abused the privilege of proceeding IFP, the Court has barred her from proceeding IFP, unless she obtains leave of Court to do so. See Frost v. City of New York (HRA), No. 1:19-CV-8936, 5 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2019) (describing Plaintiff’ s litigation history and imposing filing injunction). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket, mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, and note service on the docket. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as frivolous under

(e)(2)(B)(i). The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to docket this as a “written opinion” within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 12, 2019 New York, New York hie. Iu Wik Chief United States District Judge