Frost v. United States Congress
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-02141
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frost v. United States Congress, Judge McMahon denied Yvonne Frost’s request for permission to file and for fee-free status, and closed the case.
Yvonne Frost was denied permission to file the new action and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The case was closed, and the prior restrictions on her filings remained in effect; the court also warned of possible additional sanctions.
What happened
In Frost v. United States Congress, the court addressed Yvonne Frost’s attempt to bring a new civil action after earlier orders restricted her filings. Those orders required her to obtain permission before filing certain new cases and to submit specified documents.
Frost submitted the required documents, but the court found that her proposed complaint did not present facts supporting a reasonable claim for relief. The court denied her permission to file the action and denied her request to proceed without paying filing fees.
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The existing filing restrictions remained in effect, and the court warned that additional restrictions or monetary penalties could follow further frivolous filings.
The detailed version
- Frost v. United States Congress · No. 1:20-cv-02141
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 13, 2020
Background
Earlier orders had barred Yvonne Frost from filing new actions without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained permission from the court. A later order required her to submit a motion for permission, a copy of that order, the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it, and a sworn statement addressing whether the claims were frivolous, brought in bad faith, or filed for an improper purpose.
Filing and Court’s Analysis
Frost filed a new complaint on March 13, 2020, along with the required documents. The court reviewed her motion for permission to file, declaration, and proposed complaint. It concluded that the filing continued her pattern of frivolous and nonmeritorious actions and that she had not shown facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief. The court therefore found that Frost had not shown good cause for being allowed to file the action.
Ruling
The court denied Frost’s request for permission to file the new civil action and denied her request to proceed without paying the filing fee. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. The earlier restriction on filing new civil actions without first seeking permission remained in effect. The court warned that additional sanctions, including further filing restrictions and monetary penalties, could result from continued frivolous complaints.
The court 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 an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.