Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 13, 2020

Frost v. City of New York

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-00963
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 the case without prejudice because Frost had not obtained required permission to file it without paying fees.

Who this affects

Yvonne Frost, whose action was dismissed without prejudice because she filed it without first obtaining the permission required by an earlier court order.

What happened

Yvonne Frost filed this pro se case against the City of New York (HRA) and sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees. A November 7, 2019 order had barred her from filing any new case without paying fees unless she first obtained the court’s 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.

Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that any 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. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00963
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Feb. 13, 2020

Background

Yvonne Frost filed this pro se action against the City of New York (HRA) and sought to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee. The court stated that an order issued on November 7, 2019, had barred Frost from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained leave, or permission, from the court.

Reason for dismissal

Because Frost had not sought permission before filing this action, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 for failure to comply with the November 7, 2019 order. The opinion does not address the underlying claims against the City of New York (HRA).

Appeal-related ruling

The court 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 in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal.

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.