Calvino v. Office of the City Clerk
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00158
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Calvino v. Office of the City Clerk: Judge McMahon dismissed Calvino’s complaint as frivolous and declined to allow amendment.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s complaint was dismissed at the court’s screening stage. The Office of the City Clerk was the named defendant. Calvino also could face a future restriction on filing new actions without prepaying fees if further frivolous or vexatious litigation occurs, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal in this case.
What happened
In Calvino v. Office of the City Clerk, Ernest Calvino Jr. sued the Office of the City Clerk, alleging corruption, obstruction of his legal rights, and a conspiracy. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
Calvino alleged that officials in Holyoke and Springfield, Massachusetts, could not find information about marriages or other records involving him and women. The opinion says that he did not identify a federal-court jurisdictional basis or a specific federal right that was violated.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous, meaning it had no arguable legal or factual basis. She declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be fixed, repeated a warning about possible restrictions on future fee-free filings, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Office of the City Clerk · No. 1:20-cv-00158
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. filed a complaint against the Office of the City Clerk alleging that the defendant violated his rights. The court had granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Calvino used the court’s general complaint form. He did not select a basis for federal-court jurisdiction and wrote that his rights had been violated through “corruption, obstruction of my legal rights, conspiracy of scam[.]” He identified Holyoke and Springfield, Massachusetts, as places where the events occurred but left the date-of-occurrence section blank.
Calvino alleged that he had asked officials for information about himself, including whether he was married in Holyoke and information about a female friend. He said officials found nothing in the City of Holyoke’s computer system or City Hall records. He also referred to the city’s tax collection office and the mayor, and alleged that women may have married him without his signature.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without prepaying fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court must also dismiss when it lacks authority to hear the case. Although courts must read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, the court concluded that Calvino’s allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them.
The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to allow Calvino to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also reiterated that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring Calvino from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained permission.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket. The complaint was dismissed as frivolous. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.