Calvino v. Brana
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00378
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Brana, Judge McMahon dismissed Ernest Calvino Jr.’s IFP action as frivolous and denied IFP status for an appeal.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s case was dismissed, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. The four named defendants—Mayra Brana, Jackeline Baez, Jose Baez N., and Luis Nazario—were the defendants in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Calvino v. Brana, Ernest Calvino Jr., representing himself, sued four defendants after receiving information that they might know who was conspiring against him and had received his assets or money. He sought the return of valuables, assets, money, property, and businesses, and invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules requiring dismissal of a fee-free case that is frivolous or legally insufficient. It concluded that Calvino’s claims were irrational, had no legal theory supporting them, and continued his pattern of frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. The court also found that amending the complaint would be futile.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and declined to allow an amended complaint. She also denied Calvino fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Brana · No. 1:20-cv-00378
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action without a lawyer. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees, known as proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP). Calvino invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. On the complaint form, he identified the federal constitutional or statutory basis as “scam, Lack to transfer Asset, money.”
Calvino alleged that the defendants were people from Puerto Rico whom someone had said might help with a legal problem. He stated that they might know who was conspiring against him to leave him poor and that someone had told him to pass his assets and money to them. He said he had not contacted them since 2018 and requested his valuables, assets, money, property, and businesses.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected by immunity. The court must also dismiss when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously, those complaints must still present a legally or factually supportable claim.
A claim is frivolous when it has no arguable basis in law or fact. The court may find factual frivolousness when the allegations are irrational or wholly incredible, or legal frivolousness when the claim rests on an indisputably meritless legal theory.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that Calvino had filed numerous frivolous actions in the Southern District of New York since December 17, 2019. It had previously warned him that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to a bar on filing new actions IFP without first obtaining court permission. The court had also directed him to explain why such a filing restriction should not be imposed.
The court concluded that this action, filed after that direction, continued Calvino’s pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation. Even when read with the special consideration given to complaints filed without a lawyer, the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court further determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment, so it declined to grant leave to amend.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to that dismissal. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.