Calvino v. Sportefy Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11956
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Sportefy, Judge McMahon dismissed the self-represented plaintiff’s action as frivolous and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Ernest Calvino, Jr.’s action was dismissed as frivolous; the court declined to allow amendment and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Calvino v. Sportefy Inc., Ernest Calvino, Jr., representing himself, sued Sportefy and four individuals on behalf of himself and “Edward Snow.” He sought money, assets, property, businesses, and an explanation, but the complaint did not clearly state a legal claim.
The court said that, even when read generously because Calvino had no lawyer, the claims were irrational and had no legal basis. The court also found that the defects could not be fixed by changing the complaint.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint, and denied Calvino permission to appeal without paying fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Sportefy Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11956
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action on behalf of himself and “Edward Snow” against “Sportefy Inc.” and four individuals. The complaint stated: “claim to support me, claim to pass me money, asset, propertys [sic], businesses we they make contact.” It also referred to an additional defendant as “Victoria Secret model Swagle [sic].” Calvino requested “transfer of money unlimited, transfer of asset, transfer of business, explanation.”
The court had previously allowed Calvino to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding without payment of fees. Under the federal statute governing such cases, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The court gave the complaint the liberal reading required for a self-represented litigant. Even with that reading, however, it concluded that the claims were irrational and that there was no legal theory supporting them. The court therefore characterized the action as frivolous—that is, lacking an arguable basis in law or fact.
The court explained that self-represented plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but an amendment is not required when it would be futile. It concluded that the defects in Calvino’s complaint could not be cured by amendment and declined to grant leave to amend.
The court also noted that Calvino had filed numerous actions in the court beginning in December 2019, some of which had 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 without preapproval while seeking to proceed without paying fees.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Calvino a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.