Calvino v. British that scam me, from the T.V., internet, radio
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11908
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Calvino v. British That Scam Me, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se complaint as frivolous and denied appeal fee relief.
Ernest Calvino, Jr.'s complaint was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Ernest Calvino, Jr. v. British That Scam Me, From the T.V. Internet, Radio, the plaintiff alleged that women who spoke to him through television, radio, and the internet seemed friendly but were not friendly or supportive when he met them in person. He asked the court to identify them and explain why they spoke to him as if they knew him.
The court said the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It also found that amending the complaint could not fix these problems, so it did not give him permission to amend.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous under the federal law governing complaints filed without paying fees. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The court reiterated its warning that further frivolous or harassing lawsuits could lead to restrictions on filing new cases without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. British that scam me, from the T.V., internet, radio · No. 1:19-cv-11908
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino, Jr., representing himself, filed a complaint against British That Scam Me, From the T.V. Internet, Radio. The court had allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that women who spoke to him through television, radio, and the internet appeared supportive and friendly but were not supportive or friendly when he encountered them in person. He asked the court to identify them and explain why they spoke to him through those media as if they knew him.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court must also dismiss a case when it lacks 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 allegations that are irrational or wholly incredible.
Court's analysis and ruling
The court concluded that Calvino's allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. Because the defects could not be fixed by amendment, the court declined to grant permission to amend and dismissed the action as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The court also reiterated an earlier warning that further harassing or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Calvino from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first received permission. Finally, the court certified under § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.