Frost v. NYC MTA
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05956
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yvonne Frost v. N.Y.P.D., Judge McMahon denied IFP and leave to file because the proposed action lacked plausible facts, and closed the case.
Yvonne Frost, whose application to proceed without paying filing fees and motion for permission to file a new civil action were denied; the existing restrictions on her future filings remained in effect.
What happened
In Yvonne Frost v. N.Y.P.D., Yvonne Frost asked to file a new civil action and to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had previously restricted her ability to file new cases without permission after finding that she continued filing frivolous cases.
The court reviewed Frost’s proposed complaint, motion for permission, and accompanying letter. It concluded that the proposed action continued her pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings and did not include facts suggesting a plausible legal claim. Frost also did not provide a copy of an earlier filing-restriction order as required.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Frost’s application to proceed without paying filing fees and denied her motion for permission to file the new action. The court directed the Clerk to close the case, kept the earlier filing restrictions in place, and warned that additional restrictions or monetary penalties could follow. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Frost v. NYC MTA · No. 1:20-cv-05956
- Colleen McMahon
- Aug. 3, 2020
Background
The court had previously barred Frost from filing new civil actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court later imposed additional filing requirements, including a motion for permission to file, a copy of the relevant filing-restriction 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.
On July 29, 2020, Frost filed a new complaint. She submitted the required materials except for a copy of the court’s February 14, 2020 order. The court reviewed her motion for permission to file, accompanying letter, and proposed complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the proposed action was not a departure from Frost’s pattern of vexatious and nonmeritorious filings. It stated that Frost had not alleged facts suggesting that she had a plausible claim for relief and had not shown good cause for being allowed to file the action. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in the proposed complaint in further detail.
Disposition
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 prior orders requiring Frost to seek permission before filing new civil actions remained in effect. The court warned that continued submission of frivolous complaints could lead to additional filing restrictions and monetary penalties.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for an appeal. This was a procedural order because the court denied permission to file based on filing restrictions and the failure to show a plausible claim, rather than deciding the merits of an underlying claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.