Calvino v. Electronic Court Filing Not e-file

Background

Ernest Calvino filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that request on January 23, 2020, then screened the complaint as required for a fee-free filing.

Calvino alleged that he had no privacy rights and was monitored around the clock by electronic means. He alleged that people, including perceived enemies, had manipulated his cell phones since approximately 2017 or 2018. He also alleged that attempted calls to the Federal Bureau of Investigation were redirected, that online complaints were intercepted, and that electronic filing problems and computer theft obstructed his rights. He sought the return of assets, property, businesses, and money, as well as justice.

Court’s reasoning

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss a fee-free complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously and consider the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

Even with that approach, the court concluded that Calvino’s claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. The court determined that the defects could not be corrected by amendment and therefore declined to give Calvino permission to file an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also warned that continued submission of frivolous documents could result in additional sanctions, including monetary penalties or an order directing the clerk not to accept further documents. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Other procedural points

The opinion states that Calvino had filed at least forty-five fee-free actions in recent months and that many additional actions had been dismissed as frivolous. It refers to an earlier related proceeding in which the court had directed him to explain why he should not be barred from filing new fee-free actions without first obtaining court permission. The present order imposed no such filing bar; it issued only the warning described above.