Frost v. N.Y.P.D.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00070
- 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 civil action without prejudice because she did not obtain required filing permission.
Yvonne Frost, whose new civil action was dismissed without prejudice because she filed it without first obtaining permission required by an earlier court order.
What happened
In Frost v. City of New York (HRA), Yvonne Frost filed a new civil action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. An earlier court order had barred her from filing new civil actions in that court without first getting permission.
Frost did not ask for that permission before filing this case. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for violating the earlier order. It also denied payment-free status for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the dismissal and directed the clerk to note service on the docket. The order addressed Frost’s failure to follow the filing restriction and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Frost v. N.Y.P.D. · No. 1:20-cv-00070
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 17, 2020
Background
In an order entered in November 2019, the court barred Yvonne Frost from filing any new civil action in the Southern District of New York without paying filing fees unless she first obtained the court’s permission. The earlier order required her to seek leave to file before bringing another action under that payment-free procedure.
On January 2, 2020, Frost filed this new civil action without a lawyer and sought to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion states that she had not asked the court for permission to file the action.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 because Frost failed to comply with the earlier filing restriction. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself did not bar refiling, although the opinion required compliance with the earlier order before filing a new action under the same payment-free procedure. The ruling was based on filing compliance and did not address the merits of Frost’s claims.
The court directed the clerk to note service on the docket. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Judge
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order on January 17, 2020.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.