Frost v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11671
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Frost v. City of New York (HRA), Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s new case without prejudice because she lacked required filing permission.
Yvonne Frost’s newly filed case was dismissed without prejudice because she did not obtain the permission required before filing a new action without paying the filing fee. Her request to proceed without paying the fee on appeal was also denied.
What happened
In Frost v. City of New York (HRA), Yvonne Frost filed a new case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. A prior court order required her to obtain permission before filing any new case without paying that fee.
Frost had not asked for that permission before filing this case. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to follow the earlier order.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to proceed without paying the fee for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11671
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 26, 2019
Background
Yvonne Frost filed this pro se action against City of New York (HRA), et al., and sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. In a prior related proceeding, the court had barred Frost from filing any new action without paying the fee unless she first obtained the court’s permission. The opinion states that Frost did not seek that permission before filing this case.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Frost failed to comply with the earlier order. The opinion does not decide the merits of Frost’s claims.
Appeal and Effect
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Frost permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The dismissal was without prejudice, as stated in the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.