Calvino v. The Africans

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. brought this action against The Africans using the court’s general complaint form. He proceeded without a lawyer and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. The complaint identified the federal constitutional or statutory basis as “scam, obstruction of legal, constitutional right.” Calvino alleged that people who claimed to be helping him entered court proceedings without his permission. He referred to some individuals by nicknames and alleged that others were conspirators, scammers, or involved in obstruction, exploitation, and torture.

The court had previously granted Calvino permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The opinion states that, since December 17, 2019, he had filed numerous frivolous actions in the court. It also states that the court had warned him that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing new actions without prepayment unless he first obtained court permission. The court had directed him to explain why such a filing restriction should not be imposed, and he filed this action afterward.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepayment of fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court must also dismiss when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggest, a claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The opinion explains that allegations may be factually frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible, or legally frivolous when they rely on an indisputably meritless legal theory.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Calvino’s claims reached the level of irrationality even after applying the special consideration given to filings by people without lawyers. It further concluded that there was no legal theory on which he could rely. The court characterized the action as a continuation of his pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation.

Courts generally give a person without a lawyer an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but they need not do so when amendment would be futile. The court determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment and therefore declined to grant leave to amend.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Calvino and note service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.