Calvino v. Gigi Hadid
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Calvino v. Hadid, Judge McMahon dismissed Calvino’s fee-waived complaint as frivolous after screening it.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s complaint was dismissed, and the order affected his ability to file future actions without prepaying fees if further litigation is found to be frivolous or vexatious. Gigi Hadid was the defendant in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Calvino v. Gigi Hadid, Ernest Calvino Jr. sued Gigi Hadid, alleging neglect, lack of support, disrespect, threats to sue, and disputes involving his property and money. He invoked the court’s jurisdiction over citizens of different states and identified electronic communications since 2018 as the place and time of the events.
Calvino alleged that Hadid wanted his belongings, was conspiring to spy on him and use information to build herself up, and had falsely reported a complaint to mislead a court. The opinion does not identify a specific legal claim beyond these allegations.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous, finding that the allegations were irrational and lacked a supporting legal theory. The court denied permission to amend because the defects could not be corrected, repeated a warning about possible limits on future fee-waived filings, and denied fee-waived status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Gigi Hadid · No. 1:20-cv-00138
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. filed a complaint against Gigi Hadid. He asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees, and the court granted that request. On the complaint form, he invoked jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and stated that his rights had been violated by “neglect, lack of support, disrespect, threat to sue and stay with me[,] asset, property, busnesse [sic] and money[.]” He identified “Electronic communication” as the place of occurrence and “since 2018” as the date.
Calvino further alleged that Hadid told him she would sue him to stay with his belongings, was involved in a conspiracy to spy on him and obtain information to build herself up, and falsely reported a complaint to mislead a court in Holyoke, Massachusetts. The opinion does not set out a more specific cause of action.
Legal standard
Because Calvino was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, a claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court concluded that, even when read with the special consideration given to self-represented filings, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them.
The court declined to give Calvino permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It also repeated a warning that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first received permission.
Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for purposes of an appeal. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.