Frost v. NYC MTA
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Frost v. NYC MTA, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s new case without prejudice for filing without required court permission.
Yvonne Frost’s action against NYC MTA and other defendants was dismissed without prejudice, and Frost was denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
What happened
Frost v. NYC MTA involved Yvonne Frost’s new case, filed without a lawyer, in which she asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. A prior related proceeding had barred her from filing new cases without first getting the court’s permission.
Frost had not asked for that permission before filing this case. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice because she failed to comply with the earlier order.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYC MTA · No. 1:19-cv-11257
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 2, 2020
Background
Yvonne Frost filed this pro se action against NYC MTA and other defendants. She sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status, meaning permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion states that, in a prior related proceeding, the court had barred Frost from filing any new action with IFP status unless she first obtained leave, or permission, from the court.
Reason for dismissal
Frost had not sought leave before filing this action. The court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 for failure to comply with the earlier order. The dismissal was without prejudice.
Other ruling and disposition
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to assign the matter to her docket, send Frost a copy of the order, and record service on the docket. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the action for failure to comply with a prior filing restriction and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.