Frost v. NYC MTA

Background

Earlier orders barred Yvonne Frost from filing new civil actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining permission. One order specifically barred her from filing without paying filing fees unless she first received the court’s approval. A later order required any new filing to include a motion for permission, a copy of that order, the required fees or an application to proceed without paying fees, and a sworn statement addressing frivolousness, improper purpose, and compliance with court rules.

On July 2, 2020, Frost filed a new complaint. The court stated that she submitted the required materials except for a copy of the February 14, 2020 order. After reviewing her request for permission to file, her accompanying letter, and the proposed complaint, the court concluded that the proposed action continued her pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings. The court found that Frost had not alleged facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief and had not shown good cause for permission to file.

Rulings

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon denied Frost’s motion for permission to file the new civil action. The court also denied her application to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action and stated that the prior orders restricting Frost’s filings 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 any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free filing status for an appeal.

Classification basis

This is a procedural order. The court denied permission to file based on filing restrictions and its conclusion that the proposed complaint did not present a plausible claim; it did not adjudicate the underlying claims on their merits.