Frost v. NYC MTA

Background

On November 7, 2019, the court barred Yvonne Frost from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained the court’s permission. After Frost continued filing what the court described as frivolous actions, a later order imposed additional requirements. For any new complaint, she had to submit a motion for permission to file, a copy of the later order, the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it, and a sworn statement addressing frivolousness, bad faith, improper purpose, and compliance with court rules.

Several days after that later order, Frost filed this complaint. The case was opened because she submitted the required materials. The proposed complaint again named NYC MTA, NYPD, and World Trade Center. After reviewing the materials, the court concluded that Frost had not shown good cause for allowing the new action and had not alleged facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief.

Ruling

The court denied Frost’s request for permission to file the action and denied her request to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. The earlier order barring Frost from filing new actions without first seeking permission remained in effect.

The court warned that continued submission of frivolous complaints could result in additional sanctions, including further filing restrictions and monetary penalties. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court did not decide the merits of any underlying claim. It refused permission to file based on the lack of a plausible claim and Frost’s failure to show good cause under the existing filing restrictions.