Calvino v. Trump
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00068
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Calvino v. Trump, Judge McMahon dismissed Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action as frivolous and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action was dismissed as frivolous, and he was denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The defendants were not required to litigate the claims on their merits in this action.
What happened
In Calvino v. Trump, Ernest Calvino Jr. sued Donald Trump Jr. and Ilka Trump, alleging a conspiracy to harm him and steal information. He sought the return of property and money damages.
The court treated two complaints as one operative complaint but declined to combine this case with another case involving members of the Trump family. The court found that the allegations were irrational and had no supporting legal theory.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, without allowing another amendment. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Trump · No. 1:20-cv-00068
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action without a lawyer. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees. He initially sued Donald Trump Jr., whom the opinion describes as the President’s son, and later submitted another complaint adding Ilka Trump. The court treated the two complaints together as the operative complaint because Calvino intended the second filing to supplement the first.
Calvino alleged that people were spying on him and stealing his information, and that Donald Trump Jr. had conspired to harm him. The opinion quotes his allegations in full and states that he sought the return of property and monetary damages. Calvino also asked the court to combine this action with another case involving members of the Trump family. The court declined to do so.
Court’s analysis
Because Calvino had been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That provision requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the subject matter.
The court stated that a complaint is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible or when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Even after reading Calvino’s filings liberally and giving special consideration to his status as a self-represented litigant, the court found that his claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them.
Disposition
The court held that the defects could not be cured by amendment, so it declined to give Calvino permission to amend. Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court also consolidated the two complaints for purposes of treating them as the operative complaint, directed the clerk to mail the order to Calvino, and certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Permission to appeal without prepaying fees was therefore denied.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.