Frost v. NYPD
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11835
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Yvonne Frost: Judge McMahon dismissed three actions without prejudice because Frost did not obtain required filing permission.
Yvonne Frost and the three cases identified by docket numbers 1:19-CV-11835, 1:19-CV-11839, and 1:19-CV-11840.
What happened
In re Yvonne Frost involved three cases filed by Yvonne Frost, who was representing herself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. A prior order barred her from filing new fee-free cases unless she first obtained the court’s permission, but she had not sought that permission.
The court dismissed all three actions without prejudice because Frost did not comply with the earlier order. This means the dismissals did not permanently bar refiling, although the opinion does not address the underlying claims.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYPD · No. 1:19-cv-11835
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 3, 2020
Background
On November 7, 2019, the court had barred Yvonne Frost from filing any new action without paying fees unless she first obtained permission from the court. The order states that Frost then filed three cases, sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and did not seek the required permission to file.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed all three actions without prejudice for failure to comply with the November 7, 2019 order. The opinion does not decide the merits of any underlying claim.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to place the order in all three cases, send it to Frost, and record service on the docket.
Effect
The three cases were dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not state whether Frost later sought permission to file or whether any of the underlying claims could proceed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.