Calvino v. A.T.F. Puerto Rico

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. filed a complaint against ATF Puerto Rico and Peers. He alleged “extortion, harassment and false accusation” and invoked the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. His complaint stated that the District Attorney of Puerto Rico, “Zumoza A.,” and ATF Puerto Rico were anonymously intimidating him through electronic television, a cell phone, and other means, and had anonymously accused him of murder. The opinion does not provide more detail about these allegations.

The court had previously allowed Calvino to proceed without paying filing fees. Because Calvino litigated without a lawyer, the court read his allegations liberally and considered the strongest claims they could reasonably suggest.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a case filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. The court must also dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the dispute. A claim is frivolous when it lacks a reasonable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court concluded that, even when read with the special consideration given to complaints filed without a lawyer, 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).

The court declined to give Calvino permission to amend the complaint because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also 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 an appeal.

Related filing history

The opinion states that Calvino filed 45 actions in this court between December 17, 2019, and January 9, 2020, and that 17 had been dismissed as frivolous. It also states that he had been warned that additional vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained permission. A January 10, 2020 order directed him to explain why such a restriction should not be imposed. This order itself dismisses the complaint and addresses appeal fee status; it does not state that the filing restriction was imposed here.