Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 6, 2020

Frost v. City of New York

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-00084
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Frost v. City of New York (HRA), Judge McMahon dismissed Frost’s case without prejudice for violating a prior filing restriction and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Who this affects

Yvonne Frost’s newly filed action was dismissed without prejudice; the defendants were not required to litigate the merits in this order.

What happened

In Frost v. City of New York (HRA), Yvonne Frost filed a new case against the City of New York (HRA), NYC MTA, and World Trade Center. She represented herself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.

A November 7, 2019 order barred Frost from filing any new fee-free case unless she first obtained the court’s permission. Frost did not request that permission before filing this case.

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Frost did not comply with the earlier order. Judge McMahon also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Frost v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00084
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 6, 2020

Background

Yvonne Frost filed this action against the City of New York (HRA), NYC MTA, and World Trade Center. The opinion states that Frost was representing herself and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Prior Filing Restriction

On November 7, 2019, the court had barred Frost from filing any new action without paying filing fees unless she first obtained permission from the court. Frost filed this new case but did not seek that permission.

Ruling

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Frost failed to comply with the November 7, 2019 order. The opinion does not address the merits of Frost’s claims.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The clerk was directed to send Frost a copy of the order and record service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.