Calvino v. Biden
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00067
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Biden, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed Ernest Calvino Jr.’s complaint as frivolous and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The order also discusses possible restrictions on his future fee-free filings, but it does not state that such a restriction was imposed in this order.
What happened
In Calvino v. Biden, Ernest Calvino Jr., who was representing himself, sued former Vice President Joe Biden. Calvino referred to a lack of support, restitution, assets, and money, and alleged that federal authorities and local police neglected a data breach; he sought the return of property and money damages.
The court said that, even reading the complaint generously, the claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. Because the defects could not be fixed by changing the complaint, the court declined to allow an amended complaint.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under the federal law governing fee-free filings. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Calvino permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Biden · No. 1:20-cv-00067
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action without a lawyer against Joe Biden. The court had previously allowed Calvino to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. Using the court’s general complaint form, Calvino identified the federal constitutional or statutory basis of his action as “lack of support, lack to transfer restitution, asset, money.” He alleged that another politician referred him to resolve a civil lawsuit at the political level because federal authorities and local police neglected a data breach, allegedly saying they were investigating him. He sought the return of property and monetary damages.
Screening standard
The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis. The court also stated that it must read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggest.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Calvino’s claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them, even under the generous reading required for a self-represented litigant’s complaint. Although courts generally give such a litigant an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend.
The opinion also discussed Calvino’s filing history, stating that he had filed numerous frivolous actions in the court since December 17, 2019. It noted that the court had previously warned him that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained permission. The opinion further stated that the court had directed him to explain why such a restriction should not be imposed.
Disposition
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The clerk was directed to mail Calvino a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free filing status for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.