Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2020

Frost v. World Trade Center

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-00641
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Frost v. World Trade Center, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed Yvonne Frost’s action without prejudice for filing without required court permission.

Who this affects

Yvonne Frost’s case was dismissed without prejudice because she did not obtain required permission before filing a new action using IFP status. The order also denied her IFP status for an appeal.

What happened

In Frost v. World Trade Center, Yvonne Frost filed a new civil action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. An earlier order had required her to obtain court permission before filing any new action under that payment arrangement.

Frost had not obtained that permission before filing this case against World Trade Center, NYC MTA, City of New York (HRA), and NYPD. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to follow the earlier order.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to appeal without paying fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Frost v. World Trade Center · No. 1:20-cv-00641
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Feb. 3, 2020

Background

Yvonne Frost filed this action against World Trade Center; NYC MTA; City of New York (HRA); and NYPD. She was representing herself and asked to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying court filing fees.

The court explained that, in an order entered in a prior related proceeding, Frost had been barred from filing any new civil action using IFP status unless she first obtained the court’s permission. Frost filed this action but did not seek that permission.

Ruling

The court dismissed this action without prejudice because Frost failed to comply with the earlier filing restriction. The opinion does not decide the merits of Frost’s claims against the defendants.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail 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.