Frost v. US Congress
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05652
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Frost v. U.S. Congress, Judge McMahon denied Frost permission to file and IFP status, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Yvonne Frost was denied permission to file this action and permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Her existing restriction on filing new civil actions in this court without first obtaining permission remained in effect, and the court warned of possible additional filing restrictions and monetary penalties.
What happened
In Frost v. U.S. Congress, Yvonne Frost filed a new complaint after earlier orders restricted her ability to file civil actions without the court’s permission. She submitted the required documents, so the case was opened.
The court reviewed Frost’s proposed complaint, motion for permission to file, and declaration. It concluded that the filing continued her pattern of frivolous and nonmeritorious lawsuits and did not show a plausible claim or good cause for allowing the case to proceed.
Judge McMahon denied Frost’s request to file the action and her request to proceed without paying the filing fee, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The existing filing restriction remained in effect, and the court warned that further frivolous complaints could lead to additional restrictions and monetary penalties.
The detailed version
- Frost v. US Congress · No. 1:20-cv-05652
- Colleen McMahon
- July 27, 2020
Background
Earlier orders barred Yvonne Frost from filing new civil actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining permission from the court when seeking to proceed without paying filing fees. Additional restrictions required her to submit specific documents with any new complaint, including a motion for permission to file, the relevant prior order, the filing fee or an application to proceed without paying it, and a sworn statement addressing frivolousness, bad faith, improper purpose, and compliance with court rules.
Frost filed a new complaint on July 16, 2020, along with the required documents. The court reviewed her motion for permission to file, accompanying declaration, and proposed complaint. The opinion states that the proposed action did not depart from her pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings, and that she alleged no facts suggesting a plausible claim for relief. The opinion does not describe the proposed complaint’s underlying legal claims in detail.
Ruling
The court denied Frost’s request for permission to file the new civil action because she had not shown good cause. It also denied her request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the action.
The prior order barring Frost from filing new civil actions in this court without first seeking permission remained in effect. Judge Colleen McMahon warned that continued frivolous filings could result in additional sanctions, including further filing restrictions and monetary penalties.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.