Calvino v. Swift
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11600
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Calvino v. Swift, Judge McMahon dismissed Ernest Calvino Jr.’s complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s complaint was dismissed, and he was denied permission to pursue an appeal without prepaying fees. The court also repeated a warning about possible future restrictions on his fee-free filings.
What happened
In Calvino v. Swift, Ernest Calvino Jr. sued Taylor Swift, the Celebrity, alleging obstruction of civil rights and electronic communications, spying, harassment, and defamation. He sought damages for emotional, mental-health, and personal-image harm but did not provide a specific amount.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules governing lawsuits filed without paying fees and found that the allegations were irrational and had no available legal theory. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous and declined to allow amendment because amendment would be futile.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order. She repeated a warning that further frivolous or harassing lawsuits could lead to restrictions on filing new fee-free cases, and she denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Swift · No. 1:19-cv-11600
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. filed a complaint against Taylor Swift, the Celebrity. The opinion describes Calvino as proceeding without a lawyer and says the court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
On the court’s general complaint form, Calvino invoked federal-question jurisdiction. He identified alleged violations as “obstruction of my civil right,” “obstruction of electronic communication,” “ilegal spying,” “misleading,” and “Harassment.” He also alleged electronic stacking, electronic defamation, electronic harassment, electronic spying, obstruction of civil rights, and obstruction of electronic communications. He listed emotional damage, mental-health damage, and damage to his personal image as injuries. For requested relief, he wrote “Estimate value pending.”
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it must dismiss a lawsuit filed without prepaying fees if the lawsuit is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from a legally immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.
The court stated that, even after giving the complaint the generous reading required for filings by people without lawyers, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It also declined to give Calvino an opportunity to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment.
Disposition
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court repeated its warning that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring Calvino from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained permission. The court also certified that an 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 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.