Frost v. F.D.N.Y.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05357
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frost v. F.D.N.Y., Judge McMahon denied Yvonne Frost permission to file a new action, closed the case, and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Yvonne Frost, whose request to file the new action was denied, whose existing filing restrictions remained in effect, and whose IFP status for an appeal was denied. The court directed the clerk to close the action.
What happened
In Frost v. F.D.N.Y., Yvonne Frost had previously been barred from filing new civil actions in this court without first obtaining permission. The court later imposed additional filing requirements because she continued filing what it described as frivolous actions.
Frost filed a new complaint, a request for permission to file it, and a required statement. She did not pay the required fees, submit an application to proceed without paying them, or provide a copy of an earlier filing-restriction order. The court reviewed her request and proposed complaint and found no facts suggesting a plausible legal claim.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Frost permission to file the action, directed the clerk to close the case, continued the existing filing restrictions, and warned that further sanctions could follow. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Frost v. F.D.N.Y. · No. 1:20-cv-05357
- Colleen McMahon
- July 24, 2020
Background
The court previously barred Yvonne Frost from filing new civil actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining permission to proceed without paying filing fees, known as proceeding in forma pauperis or IFP. After Frost continued filing what the court characterized as frivolous actions, the court imposed additional requirements for any new complaint. Those requirements included a motion for permission to file, a copy of the February 14, 2020 order, the required fees or an IFP application, and a sworn statement that the claims were not frivolous or brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
Frost’s Filing
On July 9, 2020, Frost filed a new complaint, a motion for permission to file, and the required sworn statement. She did not pay the relevant fees, submit an IFP application, or submit a copy of the February 14, 2020 order. The court assumed for purposes of the order that she sought to proceed IFP. After reviewing her motion, accompanying letter, and proposed complaint, the court concluded that the filing continued her pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious submissions and that she had alleged no facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief.
Ruling
The court denied Frost’s motion for permission to file the new civil action because she had not shown good cause for permission. It directed the clerk to close the action and stated that the existing restrictions on Frost’s IFP filings remained in effect. The court warned that further frivolous complaints could lead to additional filing restrictions and monetary penalties. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying merits of any claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.