Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 22, 2020

Calvino v. United States District Court Southern District of New York

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-00469
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Calvino v. United States District Court, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Who this affects

Ernest Calvino Jr.; the complaint was dismissed, amendment was not allowed, and fee-free status was denied for an appeal. The court also warned that future frivolous or vexatious filings could lead to restrictions on filing without prior permission.

What happened

Ernest Calvino Jr. v. United States District Court Southern District of New York involved allegations that unknown people used electronic devices to monitor him, disclosed sensitive information, and interfered with his legal and constitutional rights. He filed the case without paying filing fees.

The court concluded that the allegations were irrational and did not support any legal claim. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous and declined to allow an amended complaint because the defects could not be fixed. The court also warned that further frivolous or harassing lawsuits could lead to restrictions on filing future cases without prior permission.

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the dismissal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so fee-free status was denied for an appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Calvino v. United States District Court Southern District of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00469
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 22, 2020

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. filed a complaint against the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees. The complaint form did not identify federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, and it left the places and dates of the alleged events blank.

Calvino wrote that unknown computer scammers had obstructed his legal and constitutional rights and asked to extend an appeal deadline. He also alleged that unknown people disclosed sensitive information about him, used hidden audio and video devices to monitor him, followed him, interfered with his access to courts, hospitals, and shelters, and prevented him from having privacy.

Court’s analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a complaint filed without paying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court must also dismiss when it lacks authority to hear the dispute. The court stated that it had to read a self-represented party’s allegations generously, but concluded that Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them.

The court therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to give Calvino permission to amend because, in the court’s view, the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment.

Litigation history and ruling

The court stated that Calvino had filed 68 actions in that court between December 17, 2019, and January 17, 2020, and that more than 30 had been dismissed as frivolous. It also stated that he had been warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained permission.

The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Calvino and note service on the docket. The court repeated the warning about possible future filing restrictions. Judge Colleen McMahon 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 authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.