Frost v. Court of Appeals
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frost v. Court of Appeals, Judge McMahon denied Yvonne Frost permission to file and denied her fee-waiver request, keeping prior filing restrictions in place.
Yvonne Frost, whose application to proceed without paying filing fees and request for permission to file a new civil action were denied; the existing restrictions on her future filings remained in effect.
What happened
Frost v. Court of Appeals concerns Yvonne Frost’s attempt to file a new civil action after the court had restricted her ability to file cases without permission. She submitted most of the documents the court had required, but the court found that her proposed case did not show a plausible claim for relief.
The court concluded that Frost had not shown good cause to file the action and found that it continued her pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings. It denied her application to proceed without paying filing fees and denied her request for permission to file the action. The earlier restriction remained in effect, and the court warned that further frivolous complaints could lead to additional filing restrictions and monetary penalties.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Frost v. Court of Appeals · No. 1:20-cv-05356
- Colleen McMahon
- July 16, 2020
Background
The court had previously barred Yvonne Frost from filing any new civil action without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained the court’s permission. In a later order, the court imposed additional filing requirements, including a motion for permission to file, a copy of that order, the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it, and a sworn statement that the proposed claims were not frivolous or brought for an improper purpose.
On July 9, 2020, Frost filed a new complaint. The opinion states that she submitted the required materials except for a copy of the later filing-restriction order. The court reviewed her request for permission, her accompanying letter, and her 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 for permission to file the action.
Ruling
The court denied Frost’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and denied her request for permission to file the new action. The prior restriction on filing new civil actions without first seeking the court’s permission remained in effect. The court warned that continued frivolous complaints could result in additional sanctions, including further filing restrictions and monetary penalties.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.