Calvino v. Dow Jones

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. sued Dow Jones and S and P 500. He filed the complaint without a lawyer. Although he did not select the form’s boxes asserting federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, he listed alleged conspiracies involving scams, computer theft, harassment, extortion, use of information without permission, and exploitation.

Calvino alleged that he was placed in the stock market without signing up, that the defendants made money using him and owed him payment, and that they used private information without permission. He also alleged that information about him was intellectual property or trade secrets and that people or businesses used brain-monitoring devices, hidden audio devices, hidden cameras, cellphones, and other technology to investigate or spy on people.

Screening standard

Because Calvino was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, the court was required to screen his complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss a claim that was frivolous, malicious, legally insufficient, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss if it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. It stated that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously, but that requirement did not prevent dismissal of claims that lacked any arguable legal or factual basis.

Court’s reasoning

The court concluded that, even when read generously, Calvino’s allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported his claims. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court explained that a person filing without a lawyer is generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but that amendment is unnecessary when it would be futile. It declined to grant Calvino permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment.

Litigation history and disposition

The court stated that Calvino had filed 68 actions in that court between December 17, 2019, and January 17, 2020, and that more than 30 had been dismissed as frivolous. The court had previously warned him that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained permission. This order repeated that warning; it did not state that the filing restriction was imposed in this case.

The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket. The complaint was dismissed as frivolous. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Calvino permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.