Calvino v. Glaser
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Calvino v. Glaser, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action was dismissed, and he was denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order also declined to allow another amendment.
What happened
In Calvino v. Glaser, Ernest Calvino Jr. sued Jim Glaser, claiming Glaser conspired with others to harm him and seeking property and money. Calvino proceeded without a lawyer and had permission to file without paying court fees.
The court found that the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported the claims. It dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow another amendment, and ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Colleen McMahon also denied Calvino permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Glaser · No. 1:20-cv-00156
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action without a lawyer and invoked diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. Calvino alleged that Jim Glaser, whom he described as an attorney, conspired to harm him. His allegations referred to an encounter at a hotel, alleged electronic misleading or court corruption, property and business assets that he claimed belonged to him, and alleged access by other people to his personal and financial information. He sought the return of property and monetary damages.
Screening standard
Because Calvino was proceeding without paying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or invoked a matter outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally and consider the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.
Court’s analysis
The court held that, even under that liberal reading, Calvino’s claims were frivolous. It found that the claims rose to the level of being irrational and that there was no legal theory on which Calvino could rely. The court stated that the defects could not be cured by another amendment, so it declined to give Calvino leave to amend.
The court also described Calvino’s recent filing history and noted that he had previously been warned that further frivolous or abusive litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new actions without paying fees. The opinion recounts that, in another related proceeding, the court had directed Calvino to explain why such a restriction should not be imposed; this order does not state that it imposed that restriction here.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.