Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 20, 2020

Frost v. City of New York

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-05344
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Frost v. City of New York (HRA), Judge McMahon denied Yvonne Frost permission to file the case, denied her request to proceed without fees, and closed it.

Who this affects

Yvonne Frost was directly affected: the Court denied her permission to file the new action and her request to proceed without paying filing fees, closed the case, continued the existing filing restrictions, and warned of possible additional sanctions.

What happened

Frost v. City of New York (HRA) involved Yvonne Frost’s attempt to file a new civil action after the court had placed restrictions on her filings.

The court said Frost had continued submitting many frivolous cases and had not shown facts suggesting a valid claim. She also failed to submit a copy of an earlier filing-restriction order. The court found that she had not shown a sufficient reason to permit the new case.

Judge Colleen McMahon denied Frost’s request to proceed without paying filing fees and denied her motion for permission to file the action. Judge McMahon ordered the Clerk to close the case, kept the earlier filing restrictions in effect, and warned that further frivolous filings could lead to additional restrictions or monetary penalties.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Frost v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05344
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
July 20, 2020

Background

In an earlier related proceeding, the Court barred Yvonne Frost from filing new civil actions in the Southern District of New York without paying the filing fee or first obtaining permission from the Court. The Court later imposed additional requirements, including submitting a motion for permission to file, a copy of the relevant order, the filing fee or an application to proceed without fees, and a sworn statement that the proposed claims were not frivolous or brought for an improper purpose.

Frost filed a new complaint on July 2, 2020. The opinion states that she submitted the required materials except for a copy of the Court’s February 14, 2020 order. After reviewing her motion for permission to file, accompanying letter, and proposed complaint, the Court concluded that the new action continued her pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings. The Court also 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 motion for permission to file the new civil action. It also denied her application to proceed without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the action, and the earlier orders restricting Frost’s filings remained in effect.

The Court warned that continued submission of frivolous complaints could lead to additional sanctions, including further filing restrictions 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 fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying merits of Frost’s proposed claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.