Frost v. NYC MTA
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05327
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yvonne Frost v. NYC MTA, Judge McMahon denied permission to file and to proceed without filing fees, closed the action, and continued filing restrictions.
Yvonne Frost, whose request to file the action and proceed without paying filing fees was denied; future civil filings by Frost in this court remain subject to the existing restrictions.
What happened
In Yvonne Frost v. NYC MTA, the court reviewed a new complaint after earlier orders restricted Frost’s ability to file new civil actions without first obtaining permission. The court had imposed those restrictions because it found that she had continued filing numerous frivolous civil actions.
Frost submitted the required materials except for a copy of an earlier filing-restriction order. After reviewing her request, letter, and proposed complaint, the court concluded that the new case continued her pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings and did not include facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief.
Judge McMahon denied Frost’s motion for permission to file the action and her application to proceed without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to close the action, the existing filing restrictions remained in effect, and the court warned that further frivolous filings could lead to additional restrictions or monetary penalties.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYC MTA · No. 1:20-cv-05327
- Colleen McMahon
- July 17, 2020
Background
An earlier order barred Plaintiff Yvonne Frost from filing a new civil action in the Southern District of New York without paying filing fees unless she first obtained permission from the court. A later order imposed additional filing requirements, including a motion for permission to file, a copy of that order, the required fees or an application to proceed without paying them, and a sworn statement addressing frivolousness, bad faith, improper purpose, and compliance with court rules.
Frost filed a new complaint on July 2, 2020. The opinion states that she submitted the required documents except for a copy of the later filing-restriction order.
Court’s Analysis
After reviewing Frost’s motion for permission to file, accompanying letter, and proposed complaint, the court concluded that the 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 being allowed to file the action.
Ruling
The court denied Frost’s motion for permission to file the new civil action and denied her application to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. The earlier orders 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 filing restrictions and monetary penalties. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.