Frost v. 365
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-01629
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frost v. 365, Judge McMahon denied Yvonne Frost permission to file, denied her IFP request, and closed the case.
Yvonne Frost, whose request to file the new civil action and to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied; the existing restriction on her future filings in this court remained in effect.
What happened
In Frost v. 365, Yvonne Frost filed a new civil complaint after earlier orders restricted her ability to file cases without first obtaining permission. She submitted the documents required by those orders, so the case was opened for review.
The court concluded that the proposed action continued Frost’s pattern of filings that were not legally supportable. It found that she had not presented facts suggesting a plausible claim or shown a sufficient reason to proceed.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied Frost’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and denied permission to file the new action. The court directed the Clerk to close the case, kept the earlier filing restriction in place, and warned that further frivolous filings could lead to additional restrictions or monetary penalties.
The detailed version
- Frost v. 365 · No. 1:20-cv-01629
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 11, 2020
Background
Yvonne Frost had previously been barred from filing new civil actions in the Southern District of New York without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained the court’s permission. After she continued filing what the court described as frivolous civil actions, the court imposed additional requirements. For a new complaint, Frost had to submit a motion for permission to file, a copy of the relevant restriction order, the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it, and a sworn statement addressing the legitimacy and compliance of the proposed filing.
Frost filed the complaint in this case on February 24, 2020, along with the required documents. The court reviewed her motion for permission, declaration, and proposed complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the proposed action did not depart from Frost’s pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings. It found that she alleged no facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief and had not shown good cause—an adequate reason—for being allowed to file the action.
Ruling
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied Frost’s request for permission to file the action and denied her request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. It left in effect the restriction barring Frost from filing new civil actions without first seeking permission and warned that additional frivolous complaints could result in further filing restrictions and monetary penalties. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Frost permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
The opinion does not describe the factual allegations underlying Frost’s proposed claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.