Calvino v. All people that had Asset that belong to me in the rikes island
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11910
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. All People, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ernest Calvino Jr., whose action was dismissed and whose fee-free status for an appeal was denied. The order also directed the Clerk to mail him a copy of the order and note service on the docket.
What happened
In Calvino v. All People That Had Asset That Belong to Me in the Rikes Island, Ernest Calvino Jr. claimed that people had his money and other belongings and sought their return. He identified lost wages and emotional and personal-image damage as the basis for his case.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules for cases filed without paying fees. It concluded that the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court also found that the defects could not be fixed by changing the complaint.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and did not allow an amended complaint. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. All people that had Asset that belong to me in the rikes island · No. 1:19-cv-11910
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action without a lawyer and had been allowed to proceed without prepaying court fees. Using the court’s general complaint form, he identified the basis of his claims as “lost of wages, emotional damage, damage to my person images.” He alleged that “this people” had his assets, money, and other things belonging to him. He asked for the return of money or property that he said was at, or in the names of people who were inmates at, Rikers Island.
Legal standard
The court explained that it must dismiss a case filed without prepaying fees if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally viable claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or invokes no subject-matter jurisdiction. A frivolous claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The court also noted that it must read complaints filed without a lawyer generously and consider the strongest claims the allegations suggest.
Court’s analysis
Even under that generous reading, the court found that Calvino’s claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. It concluded that the defects could not be corrected by amending the complaint, so it declined to give him an opportunity to amend.
The opinion also discussed Calvino’s litigation history, stating that he had filed numerous frivolous actions in the court since December 17, 2019, despite an earlier warning that further frivolous or harassing litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new cases without prepaying fees. The court described a separate proceeding in which it had directed him to explain why such a restriction should not be imposed. This order did not impose that restriction.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.