Calvino v. Trump

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying court fees. The court had granted that request on January 21, 2020. He invoked the court’s authority over disputes between citizens of different states, but identified the alleged legal or constitutional basis as “neglect to answer my question dougth, Lack of support, Lack to transfer my asset, property, Busnesses, money.”

He sued Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Melania Trump, and Ilka Trump. The opinion states that he alleged the defendants had claimed they would help him, support him, and help him leave a shelter, but that he remained there and had not received their support. He requested the return of property and monetary damages.

Calvino later submitted another complaint. The court understood that filing as adding Ilka Trump and asking to combine this action with another case against Donald Trump’s oldest son. The court treated both filings together as the operative complaint but declined to combine this action with the other case.

Legal standard

When a person is allowed to proceed without paying court fees, the court must dismiss the complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, 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 has no reasonable basis in fact or law. The court must read filings by people without lawyers generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims their allegations reasonably suggest.

Court’s analysis

The court noted that Calvino had filed numerous frivolous actions since December 17, 2019. It also noted that he had previously been warned that continued frivolous or harassing litigation could lead to a bar on filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained court permission. The court had separately ordered him to explain why such a restriction should not be imposed, and he filed this action after that order.

Even when read generously, the court found that Calvino’s claims were irrational and rested on no legal theory. It characterized the action as a continuation of his pattern of frivolous and harassing litigation. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court concluded that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), declined to grant leave to amend, and treated the two filings as the operative complaint. It also 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 opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.