Calvino v. Baez

Background

Ernest Calvino, Jr. brought the action without a lawyer against four private individuals, including one person he identified as the “mother of [his] son.” He invoked the court’s jurisdiction over federal questions. His complaint referred to “Defamation, misleading other, gar[nish]ment lack of transfer Asset, lack of support Discrimination.” He said the claims arose on “diff[erent] dates” and alleged that anonymous witnesses said the woman had part of his assets, had probably lied to him through electronics, and was trying to support him. He sought money damages for emotional distress.

The court had previously allowed Calvino to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It therefore reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must read complaints filed without a lawyer generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggest.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that, even when read generously, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It relied on the rule that a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible or when it rests on an indisputably meritless legal theory.

The court explained that people proceeding without lawyers are generally given an opportunity to amend defective complaints, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. It found that the defects could not be cured by amendment and declined to grant leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed Calvino’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The opinion also says that the court “dismisses both actions,” although the caption and conclusion identify this action as No. 19-CV-11667; the basis for that reference to two actions is unclear from the provided text.

Judge Colleen McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the clerk to mail Calvino a copy of the order and note service on the docket. The court also repeated a warning that future frivolous or vexatious litigation could lead to an order barring new fee-free actions unless Calvino first received permission.