Frost v. C.I.A.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Frost v. C.I.A., Judge McMahon denied Yvonne Frost permission to file and denied her application to proceed without fees.
Yvonne Frost was denied permission to file this new action and denied an application to proceed without paying filing fees; the court’s existing restrictions on her future filings remained in effect.
What happened
Frost v. C.I.A. was a new civil action filed by Yvonne Frost after the court had restricted her ability to file new cases without permission.
The court said Frost had continued filing many frivolous actions and had not shown good cause for this new case. It found that her complaint did not allege facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Frost’s motion for permission to file and her application to proceed without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to close the case, and the existing filing restrictions remained in effect.
The detailed version
- Frost v. C.I.A. · No. 1:20-cv-05753
- Colleen McMahon
- July 24, 2020
Background
The court had 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. After Frost continued filing what the court described as frivolous actions, the court imposed additional filing requirements, including a motion for permission to file, the relevant fees or an application to proceed without fees, and a sworn statement addressing the legitimacy and procedural compliance of the proposed case.
Frost filed this complaint on July 21, 2020. The court stated that she submitted the required documents except for a copy of the earlier filing-restriction order. The court’s records showed that she had filed 18 new complaints since July 2, 2020, including six on July 21, 2020.
Ruling
The court concluded that this action continued Frost’s pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings. It found that she had not alleged facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief and had not shown good cause to be allowed to file the action.
The court denied Frost’s motion for leave to file the new civil action and denied her application to proceed without paying filing fees. It directed the clerk to close the case and stated that the earlier filing restrictions remained in effect. The court also warned that further frivolous complaints could lead to additional filing restrictions and monetary penalties. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.