Calvino v. Trainor
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11668
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Trainor, Judge McMahon dismissed the frivolous complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ernest Calvino, Jr.’s action was dismissed, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. The named defendants—Meghan Trainor, Taylor Swift, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba, and Ariana Grande—were defendants in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Calvino v. Trainor, Ernest Calvino, Jr., representing himself, sued Meghan Trainor, Taylor Swift, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba, and Ariana Grande. He described his claims as “abandoment, neglect, lack of transfer asset,” his facts as “questions for support,” his damages as “Gardne,” and his requested relief as “help.”
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules requiring dismissal of a fee-free case that is frivolous or fails to state a legal claim. It concluded that the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court also found that amendment could not fix the defects, so it did not allow Calvino to file an amended complaint.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous. She certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for any appeal. The court also repeated its warning that further frivolous or harassing litigation could lead to limits on Calvino’s ability to file new civil actions without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Trainor · No. 1:19-cv-11668
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 7, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino, Jr. sued Meghan Trainor, Taylor Swift, Jennifer Lopez, Jessica Alba, and Ariana Grande. He represented himself and requested permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called in forma pauperis, or IFP. The court had granted that request on January 7, 2020.
Calvino invoked federal-question jurisdiction. In response to a form question asking which rights the defendants violated, he wrote “abandoment, neglect, lack of transfer asset.” In the complaint’s facts section, he wrote “questions for support.” He listed “Gardne” as damages and requested “help” as relief.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it must dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable factual or legal basis, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible.
Even giving special consideration to the complaint because Calvino was representing himself, the court concluded that his claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend defective pleadings, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured.
The court also noted that Calvino had filed numerous actions in December 2019, some of which had already been dismissed as frivolous. It repeated an earlier warning that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order restricting his ability to file new civil actions in that court without prepaying fees unless he first received permission.
Disposition
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.