Frost v. NYPD

Background

An earlier order barred Yvonne Frost from filing new actions without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained the court’s permission. A later order imposed additional filing requirements, including a motion for permission, a copy of that order, the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying the fee, and a sworn statement addressing frivolousness, bad faith, improper purpose, and compliance with court rules.

Frost then filed a new complaint naming the NYPD, World Trade Center, City of New York (HRA), Montefiore, and NYC MTA. The court opened the matter after receiving the required documents but reviewed her motion for permission, declaration, and proposed complaint.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the proposed action continued Frost’s pattern of what it described as vexatious and nonmeritorious filings. It stated that, as in many of her earlier complaints, Frost named the NYPD, MTA, City of New York, and World Trade Center but did not allege facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief. The court found that she had not shown good cause to be allowed to file the action.

Ruling

The court denied Frost’s request for permission to file the action and denied her request to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. The court also stated that the existing bar on filing new actions without first seeking permission remained in effect and warned that further frivolous complaints could lead to additional sanctions, including more filing restrictions and monetary penalties. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.