Calvino v. Sanchez Santana
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00659
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Sanchez Santana, Judge McMahon dismissed the unrepresented plaintiff’s complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The order dismissed Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action against Robert A. Sanchez Santana and denied Calvino permission to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal.
What happened
In Ernest Calvino Jr. v. Robert A. Sanchez Santana, Ernest Calvino Jr., who was representing himself, alleged electronic monitoring, possession of his property and assets, and other matters involving court investigations. The court had allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
The court said the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It also decided that amending the complaint could not fix its problems, so it did not give Calvino permission to file an amended complaint.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under the federal statute governing fee-free lawsuits. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Calvino fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Sanchez Santana · No. 1:20-cv-00659
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. The court granted that request by order dated January 27, 2020. Calvino alleged that someone was monitoring him electronically, knew his intellectual property, was supposed to provide investigative information for civil and criminal court proceedings, and was supposed to have his property, businesses, assets, and money. The opinion reproduces these allegations with several unclear pronouns and does not further explain the factual or legal relationship between Calvino and Robert A. Sanchez Santana.
Legal standard
The court applied the screening requirements for complaints filed by people allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), a court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court explained that a frivolous claim lacks a reasonable basis in law or fact. It also said that courts must read complaints filed without a lawyer generously and interpret them to present the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations.
Court’s analysis
Even after applying that generous reading, the court concluded that Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory on which he could rely. Although courts generally allow a self-represented plaintiff to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured. It therefore declined to grant leave to amend.
The court also stated that this action was one of 82 actions Calvino had filed without prepaying filing fees in recent months. In a prior related proceeding, the court had directed Calvino to explain why he should not be barred from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first obtained court permission.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket. Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court also certified under § 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.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.