Frost v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09001
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frost v. City of New York (HRA), Judge McMahon directed judgment and closure after an earlier frivolousness dismissal and denied fee-free appeal status.
Yvonne Frost, who filed without a lawyer, was affected by the entry of judgment, closure of the case, the existing restriction on filing new actions without court permission and without paying filing fees, and the denial of fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Frost v. City of New York (HRA), Yvonne Frost had filed the action without a lawyer. The court had previously dismissed the action as frivolous and ordered her to explain why she should not be barred from filing future actions without paying filing fees and obtaining permission.
The court noted that, in a prior related proceeding, it had already imposed that filing restriction. Because the restriction was already in place, the court said there was no useful purpose in considering the issue again in this case.
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment under the earlier dismissal order and close the case. The court also denied Frost permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Frost v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09001
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 12, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost filed this action without a lawyer. On October 11, 2019, the court dismissed the action as frivolous and ordered Frost to submit an affirmation within 30 days explaining why she should not be barred from filing additional actions without paying filing fees and without first obtaining court permission.
Reason for the Order
The court stated that, in a prior related proceeding, No. 19-CV-8936 (CM), it had already barred Frost from filing new actions without paying filing fees unless she received permission from the court. The court had previously directed Frost to show cause why that filing restriction should not be imposed, and it found that her response did not provide a reason not to impose it. Because the restriction was already in effect, the court concluded that addressing the same issue again in this action would serve no useful purpose.
Ruling
The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment pursuant to the October 11, 2019 dismissal order and to close the action under this docket number. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Effect
This order directed entry of judgment and closed the case based on the earlier dismissal. It also denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order. The opinion does not provide the underlying allegations or explain the basis of the earlier frivolousness dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.