Frost v. N.Y.P.D.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-02264
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frost v. N.Y.P.D., Judge McMahon denied IFP status and permission to file, ordered the case closed, and continued filing restrictions.
Yvonne Frost, whose request to proceed without paying filing fees and request for permission to file were denied; the existing filing restrictions remained in effect.
What happened
In Frost v. N.Y.P.D., Yvonne Frost filed a new complaint after earlier court orders restricted her ability to file new civil actions without permission. The court reviewed her proposed complaint and required supporting materials.
The court found that Frost did not show good cause for filing the action and that she alleged no facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief. It denied her request to proceed without paying filing fees and her request for permission to file, directed the Clerk to close the case, and continued the existing filing restriction. The court also warned that further frivolous complaints could lead to additional restrictions and monetary penalties.
Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. N.Y.P.D. · No. 1:20-cv-02264
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 10, 2020
Background
The court had previously barred Yvonne Frost from filing new civil actions in this court without paying the filing fee or first obtaining permission to proceed without paying it. In a prior related proceeding, the court imposed additional filing requirements, including a motion for permission to file, a copy of the restriction 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 and orders.
Frost filed a new complaint on March 12, 2020, along with the required documents. The court reviewed her request for permission to file, her accompanying declaration, and her proposed complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the proposed action continued Frost’s pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings. It stated that Frost had not alleged facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief and had not shown good cause for permission to file the action.
Disposition
The court denied Frost’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and denied her request for permission to file the new civil action. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. The existing order barring Frost from filing new civil actions without first seeking permission remained in effect.
The court warned that continued 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 an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.