Frost v. NYPD

Background

Yvonne Frost filed this case without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The defendants listed in the caption were NYPD, Montefiore, City of New York (HRA), United States SD Court, and NYC MTA. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

On November 7, 2019, the court had barred Frost from filing any new action without paying filing fees unless she first obtained the court’s permission. That order was based on what the court described as Frost’s history of vexatious and frivolous litigation. The court had also warned that continued frivolous filings could lead to additional sanctions, including monetary penalties.

The opinion states that Frost filed 43 new actions, including this one, between November 8, 2019, and January 21, 2020, without first obtaining permission. The court states that each was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the November 7 order.

Ruling

The court dismissed this action without prejudice because Frost requested fee-free filing status but did not seek the permission required by the earlier order.

The court also issued an order to show cause. It gave Frost 15 days to submit a written declaration explaining why the court should not require her to obtain permission before filing any new action in the Southern District of New York. The court stated that, to seek permission, Frost would have to file a motion titled “Motion for Leave to File,” explain why the proposed case should be allowed and why that court would be a proper venue, attach the filing-restriction order, include either the full filing fee or a request to proceed without prepayment, and provide a statement under penalty of perjury that the proposed claims were not frivolous or brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose and complied with court rules and orders.

The court stated that if Frost did not submit the declaration on time, or if it did not show good cause, those filing restrictions would be imposed. The Clerk of Court would then be directed not to open noncompliant submissions as new civil actions, and such submissions would be discarded. The restrictions were proposed through the show-cause process; the opinion did not state that they had already been imposed in this order.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. It also directed the Clerk to send Frost the order and hold the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.

Classification and effect

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the case for failure to comply with a filing requirement and addressed possible future filing restrictions without deciding the underlying claims. The order directly affected Frost’s ability to file new civil actions and to seek fee-free filing status in this court.