Frost v. NYC MTA
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-02348
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frost v. NYC MTA, Judge McMahon denied permission to file the action and denied Yvonne Frost’s request to proceed without paying fees.
Yvonne Frost, whose request to file the new civil action and request to proceed without paying filing fees were denied; the existing restrictions on her future filings remained in effect.
What happened
In Frost v. NYC MTA, Yvonne Frost filed a new complaint against multiple defendants, including NYC MTA, the City of New York, and others. Earlier court orders had restricted her ability to file new civil actions without permission after the court found that she had continued filing frivolous cases.
The court reviewed Frost’s request to file, her declaration, and her proposed complaint. It found that the proposed action continued her pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings and that she alleged no facts showing a plausible claim for relief. Frost did not show good cause for permission to file the action.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Frost’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and denied her request for leave to file the new civil action. The court directed the Clerk to close the case, kept the earlier filing restriction in effect, and warned that further frivolous filings could lead to additional restrictions and monetary penalties. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYC MTA · No. 1:20-cv-02348
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 10, 2020
Background
Yvonne Frost filed a new civil action on March 16, 2020. The case was opened after she submitted the documents required by earlier filing restrictions. Those restrictions barred her from filing new civil actions without first obtaining permission from the court and required her to submit specified documents, including a motion for leave to file, the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying fees, and a sworn statement addressing frivolousness, bad faith, improper purpose, and compliance with court rules.
The court stated that the restrictions had been imposed because Frost continued to file scores of new frivolous actions. The court also stated that her new proposed action did not depart from that pattern.
Court’s Analysis
After reviewing Frost’s motion for leave to file, accompanying declaration, and proposed complaint, the court concluded that she failed to allege facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief. The court therefore found that she had not shown good cause for permission to file the new action.
Ruling
The court denied Frost’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and denied her request for leave to file the new civil action. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. The court stated that the earlier restriction on filing new civil actions without first seeking permission remained in effect and warned that additional frivolous complaints could result in further filing restrictions and monetary penalties.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the proposed claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.