Calvino v. Google Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00464
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Judge McMahon dismissed Calvino v. Google as frivolous after finding its allegations irrational and unsupported by any legal theory.
Ernest Calvino Jr.; Google Inc., Google Corp., and Google Mail. The complaint was dismissed, no amendment was allowed, and the court warned that future frivolous or vexatious fee-free filings could be restricted.
What happened
In Calvino v. Google Inc., Ernest Calvino Jr. sued Google Inc., Google Corp., and Google Mail, seeking pictures stored on a locked Motorola cellphone and referring to subpoenas and an investigative purpose. He did not identify a specific federal constitutional or statutory right that the defendants allegedly violated.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules for cases filed without prepaying fees and found that the allegations were irrational and had no valid legal basis. It dismissed the complaint as frivolous and declined to allow an amendment because the defects could not be fixed. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees and repeated a warning about possible restrictions on future fee-free filings.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon issued the dismissal on January 22, 2020.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Google Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00464
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. filed a complaint against Google Inc., Google Corp., and Google Mail. The court had granted his request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. In the complaint, Calvino referred to a subpoena for an investigative purpose, a claimed discrepancy involving him and the Google defendants, and a lack of business relationship. He also stated that he needed pictures stored on a locked Motorola prepaid cellphone that he could not unlock.
The complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction, but Calvino did not identify a specific federal constitutional or statutory right that the defendants allegedly violated. He listed Yonkers, New York, as the place of occurrence and did not provide dates of occurrence.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying 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 a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, the allegations must still have an arguable factual or legal basis.
The court concluded that, even when read with the special consideration given to filings by people without lawyers, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Disposition
The court declined to give Calvino permission to amend because it determined that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. The Clerk was directed to mail him a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
The court also noted that Calvino had filed 68 actions in the court between December 17, 2019, and January 17, 2020, and that more than 30 had been dismissed as frivolous. The court repeated its warning 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 does not state that such a bar was imposed in this case.
Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.