Calvino v. All the woman that sue me International and National
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11914
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Calvino v. All the Woman That Sue Me International and National was dismissed as frivolous, and Judge McMahon denied fee-free status for appeal.
The dismissal affected Ernest Calvino, Jr.’s action against the named defendants. The order also denied fee-free status for any appeal and repeated a warning about possible future filing restrictions.
What happened
In Calvino v. All the Woman That Sue Me International and National, Ernest Calvino, Jr., representing himself, sued “all the woman who sue him” internationally and nationally. He did not identify the basis for federal jurisdiction.
Calvino described the alleged wrongdoing as “scam, misleading” and said the women sued him with false accusations. His requested relief was written as “cantor sue as soon as possible,” which the opinion does not explain further.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous because the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court did not allow an amendment and denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. All the woman that sue me International and National · No. 1:19-cv-11914
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 7, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino, Jr. brought the action without a lawyer against “all the woman who sue him,” both internationally and nationally. The opinion says he did not state whether he was relying on federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. In response to a form question asking which rights the defendants violated, he wrote “scam, misleading.” He also wrote that “[t]his woman sue me with fase acusations internationaly and the lawsue was aprove” and requested “cantor sue as soon as possible.” The opinion does not explain that requested relief further.
The court had previously allowed Calvino to proceed without prepaying filing fees. For cases filed without prepayment, the court must dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally and interpret them to present the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that, even under that liberal reading, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory on which he could rely. It therefore found the action frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court explained that amendment is not required when correcting the complaint would be futile and determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment.
The opinion 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 lead to an order barring him from filing new civil actions in that court without prepaying fees unless he first received permission.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous. The court did not grant leave to amend. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free 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.