Calvino v. Thompson
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00237
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Judge McMahon dismissed Calvino v. Thompson as frivolous, denied amendment, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s complaint was dismissed as frivolous, he was not allowed to amend it, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. Hannah Thompson was the named defendant.
What happened
In Calvino v. Thompson, Ernest Calvino Jr. sued Hannah Thompson, but he did not explain the basis for federal jurisdiction or clearly identify his legal claims. He wrote that his rights involved “ganashment,” transferring assets, property, businesses, and money, and sought the return or transfer of assets and money.
The court reviewed the complaint under the law requiring dismissal of fee-free cases that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief from an immune defendant. It said that, even reading the self-represented complaint generously, the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous, declined to allow amendment because the defects could not be cured, and denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court also repeated its warning that further frivolous or vexatious filings could lead to restrictions on new fee-free cases.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Thompson · No. 1:20-cv-00237
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 14, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought an action against Hannah Thompson alleging that she violated his rights. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion states that he did not identify the basis for federal jurisdiction. In response to the complaint form’s question about which federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated, he wrote: “ganashment [sic], lack to transfer asset, property, businesses, money.” He stated that the events occurred “international, national” and requested the “returned, transfer, delivery asset, property money in a normal and respectful way.”
Legal standard
The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief, 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 also stated that it must read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that, even with the generous reading required for a self-represented complaint, Calvino’s claims were irrational and lacked any legal theory on which he could rely. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
The court also discussed Calvino’s filing history, stating that he had filed 45 actions in that court between December 17, 2019, and January 9, 2020, and that 17 had been dismissed as frivolous. The court said he had been warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained permission. The opinion also states that he had been ordered to explain why such a filing restriction should not be imposed.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous. The court declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Calvino and note service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.