Frost v. NYPD

Background

Yvonne Frost filed a new complaint on March 5, 2020. The court had previously barred her from filing new civil actions without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained permission from the court. The court later imposed additional requirements, including a motion for permission to file, a copy of the earlier 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.

Frost submitted the required documents, so the case was opened. After reviewing her request for permission, her declaration, and her proposed complaint, the court concluded that the action continued her pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings. The court stated that Frost had not alleged facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief and had not shown good cause for being allowed to file the action.

Rulings

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

The court warned that continued submission of frivolous complaints could result in additional sanctions, including further restrictions on filing new civil actions 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 Frost permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.

Effect of the Order

This was a filing-restriction and fee-status order, not a decision on the underlying merits of the claims in the proposed complaint. The opinion does not describe the factual basis of those proposed claims beyond stating that the complaint lacked facts suggesting a plausible claim. Judge Colleen McMahon directed that the case be closed.