Frost v. World Trade Center
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Frost v. World Trade Center, Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s action without prejudice for violating a prior filing restriction.
Yvonne Frost’s action was dismissed without prejudice because she did not obtain the required court permission before filing a new fee-free action.
What happened
In Frost v. World Trade Center, Yvonne Frost filed a new lawsuit without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. A prior court order barred her from filing any new fee-free action unless she first obtained the court’s permission.
The opinion states that Frost did not request that permission before filing this action. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The clerk was directed to assign the case to Judge McMahon’s docket and note service.
The detailed version
- Frost v. World Trade Center · No. 1:19-cv-10903
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 18, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost filed this pro se action and sought to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. The court had previously ordered that Frost could not file any new action without first obtaining permission from the court to proceed in forma pauperis. The opinion identifies that earlier proceeding as Frost’s prior case in the Southern District of New York.
Ruling
The court found that Frost filed this new action without first seeking the required permission. It therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to comply with the November 7, 2019 order. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a later filing, although the prior filing restriction remains relevant.
Other Orders
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon directed the clerk to assign the matter to her docket and note service on the docket. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.