Calvino v. Mojica
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Mojica, Judge McMahon dismissed the frivolous action without allowing amendment and denied fee-free appeal status.
The order affected Ernest Calvino Jr., who brought the action, and Reychaira Mojica, the defendant. It dismissed Calvino’s action and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Calvino v. Mojica, Ernest Calvino Jr., representing himself, sought the return of money, assets, and property from Reychaira Mojica. He described his claims as involving neglect and lack of support but did not identify whether federal-question or diversity jurisdiction applied.
The court screened the complaint because Calvino had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. It found that his allegations were irrational and did not fit any legal theory, and concluded that amending the complaint would be futile.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under the federal statute governing fee-free cases. The court did not allow amendment and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Mojica · No. 1:19-cv-11957
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 24, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action against Reychaira Mojica while representing himself. The opinion says he did not state whether the case was based on federal-question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Calvino described the federal constitutional or statutory basis of his action as “neglect, lack to support me, lack to return[] money, asset, propert[ies] and other.” He alleged that Mojica had asked for or failed to return his money, assets, property, and business, and that she was supposed to help him get out of a bad situation. He identified emotional harm, stress, mental damage, and lost time as injuries. He sought the return of money, assets, and property, with the value to be explained later.
Court’s analysis
Because Calvino was proceeding without prepaying filing fees, the court applied the screening requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of a case that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the type of dispute presented.
The court said it had to read a self-represented litigant’s filing generously and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations. Even under that standard, however, the court found that Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court further determined that the defects could not be corrected by amendment, so it declined to give him permission to file an amended complaint.
The opinion also states that Calvino had filed numerous frivolous actions in the court and had previously been warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new civil actions without the court’s permission. The court said he remained warned, but this order did not state that it imposed such a filing restriction.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The order did not describe the dismissal as with or without prejudice. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The Clerk of Court 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.