Frost v. NYPD
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00417
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Frost v. NYPD, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed Frost’s complaint and required court permission before she could file new actions.
Yvonne Frost, who must obtain permission from the Southern District of New York before filing any new action there; the Clerk of Court was directed not to accept a complaint from her unless she meets the stated requirements.
What happened
In Frost v. NYPD, the court said Yvonne Frost had repeatedly filed frivolous cases without following an earlier order requiring permission to file without paying filing fees. The court noted that she had filed 60 new actions, including this one, between November 8, 2019, and February 12, 2020.
The court had given Frost 15 days to explain why broader filing restrictions should not be imposed, but she did not respond and instead filed 13 more actions. The court therefore required her to obtain permission before filing any new action in the Southern District of New York.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Frost’s complaint without prejudice for violating the earlier order. The court directed the Clerk not to accept a new complaint unless Frost submits the required motion, order, filing fees or a request to proceed without prepayment, and a sworn statement that the filing is not frivolous or improper.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYPD · No. 1:20-cv-00417
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
The court stated that, because of Yvonne Frost’s history of vexatious and frivolous litigation, it had barred her on November 7, 2019, from filing any new action without first obtaining permission from the court to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had also warned that continued frivolous filings could lead to additional sanctions, including monetary penalties.
The court said Frost continued filing new actions without obtaining the required permission. From November 8, 2019, through February 12, 2020, she filed 60 new actions, including this action. The opinion states that many of those actions were dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the November 7 order.
January 27 Order and Filing Restriction
On January 27, 2020, the court dismissed this action without prejudice for violating the November 7 order and directed Frost to explain in writing within 15 days why the court should not require her to seek permission before filing any new action. Frost did not respond to that order, but the court stated that she filed 13 new actions afterward.
The court then imposed the filing restriction. Before filing any new action in the court, Frost must submit a motion titled “Motion for Leave to File” explaining why she should be allowed to file and why the Southern District of New York is the proper venue. She must attach a copy of this order, include either the full filing fees or a request to proceed without prepayment of fees, and provide a statement under penalty of perjury that the claims are not frivolous or brought in bad faith, that the lawsuit is not brought for an improper purpose such as harassment or unnecessary delay, and that the filing follows the court’s orders and applicable procedural rules.
Ruling
The court dismissed Frost’s complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the November 7, 2019 order. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Frost a copy of the order and not accept any complaint from her unless she satisfies the listed requirements. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.