Calvino v. For District Attorney in this court
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00654
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. For District Attorney in This Court, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se action as frivolous and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Ernest Calvino Jr.'s action was dismissed as frivolous, without permission to amend. The court also denied him fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
What happened
In Ernest Calvino Jr. v. For District Attorney in This Court, Calvino claimed that the defendant conspired to harm him through electronic harassment, exploitation, bullying, and misleading conduct. He sought property and money damages.
The court had allowed Calvino to proceed without paying filing fees, but it reviewed the complaint under the rules requiring dismissal of fee-free cases that are frivolous or legally insufficient. The court found that the allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous, declined to allow an amended complaint because amendment would be futile, and denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. For District Attorney in this court · No. 1:20-cv-00654
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action without a lawyer and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that the defendant conspired to harm him. In the complaint, Calvino asserted that unidentified people had repeated things he had said, had likely seen him on social media, and had used electronic means to destroy, mislead, exploit, harass, bully, and monitor him. He sought unspecified property and monetary damages.
The court had previously granted Calvino permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion also states that, since December 17, 2019, Calvino had filed numerous frivolous actions in the court and had continued filing complaints after receiving a warning that further frivolous or harassing litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new fee-free actions without prior court permission. The opinion refers to a prior related proceeding in which the court directed Calvino to explain why such a restriction should not be imposed.
Legal standard
The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without paying fees if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from a defendant who is immune from that relief, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including when its factual allegations are irrational or wholly incredible or when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory. The court also stated that it must read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
Ruling
Even after reading Calvino’s complaint with the required leniency, the court concluded that his claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. It characterized the action as a continuation of Calvino’s pattern of frivolous and harassing litigation.
Courts generally give a person proceeding without a lawyer an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but the court may deny that opportunity when amendment would be futile. The court found that the defects in Calvino’s complaint could not be cured by amendment, declined to grant leave to amend, and dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Calvino a copy of the order and record service on the docket. Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.