Calvino v. Administration of the New York City

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that request on January 17, 2020. Calvino sued the “Administration of the New York City” under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction and requested money damages.

Calvino alleged “political neglect,” corruption, and conspiracies to obstruct his legal and constitutional rights. His factual allegations referred to the New York City police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, politicians, and a hospital. He alleged that he was spied on, harassed, bullied, extorted, disrespected, and exploited; that his electronic communications were obstructed; that he had no privacy since 2017; and that the named agencies and others were conspiring against him.

Legal standard

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without paying fees if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. It must also dismiss when it lacks authority to hear the case. A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable legal or factual basis, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible. The court also said it must read complaints filed without a lawyer generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims they suggest.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that, even under the more generous standard for complaints filed without a lawyer, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found that the defects here could not be cured by amendment. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend.

The opinion also stated that Calvino had filed 45 actions in the court between December 17, 2019, and January 9, 2020, and that 17 had been dismissed as frivolous. It noted that he had previously been warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained permission. The opinion further noted that, in a prior related proceeding, Calvino had been ordered to explain why such a restriction should not be imposed. This order did not state that such a filing restriction was imposed in this case.

Disposition

The court dismissed this action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It did not grant leave to amend. 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 purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket.