Calvino v. Massachusetts State Police

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. sued Massachusetts State Police and other defendants, alleging that they violated his rights. He used the court’s general complaint form and checked the box invoking diversity jurisdiction. In describing the rights allegedly violated, he listed lack of investigation, neglect of investigation, corruption, misleading a citizen, conspiracies involving spying and obstruction, torture, and electronic harassment.

Calvino alleged that he visited areas including Springfield, Chicopee, and Holyoke while seeking criminal, civil, and federal legal support. He said that people enforcing the law in those areas neglected his complaints. He also alleged that he went to a police station, told a state police officer identified as Foley about his situation, asked the officer to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and later returned to ask about a complaint and an investigation he said had been open since 2018 or shortly afterward.

Screening standard

The court had previously allowed Calvino to proceed without paying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court was required to dismiss a fee-waived complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it had to dismiss a case when it lacked authority to hear the subject matter. Because Calvino was representing himself, the court was required to read his allegations generously and consider the strongest claims they suggested.

Ruling

Judge McMahon concluded that, even under that generous reading, 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 explained that self-represented plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend defective complaints, but that amendment is unnecessary when it would be futile. It declined to give Calvino permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured.

Other orders noted in the opinion

The court noted that Calvino had filed 45 actions in that court between December 17, 2019, and January 9, 2020, and that 17 had been dismissed as frivolous. It also noted that he had been warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing new fee-waived actions without prior permission. The opinion further stated that Calvino had been ordered in a prior related proceeding to explain why such a filing restriction should not be imposed.

The court directed the clerk to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.