Calvino v. Apple Corp.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Apple Corp., Judge McMahon dismissed Calvino’s action without a lawyer as frivolous because its allegations were irrational and legally unsupported.
Ernest Calvino, Jr. and the named defendants were affected by dismissal of the action; Calvino was also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
What happened
Calvino v. Apple Corp. was brought without a lawyer against Apple-related entities and Leslie Jobs and Leslie Jobs Dobles. Calvino said the defendants conspired against him, spied on and harassed him, extorted him, stole computer-related property and trade secrets, and used his intellectual property in Apple cellphone features.
The court reviewed the complaint because Calvino had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. It found that his allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported his claims. The court also decided that amending the complaint would not fix its defects, so it did not give him permission to amend.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under the federal statute governing fee-waived cases. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Apple Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-00380
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino, Jr. brought the case without a lawyer and asserted that the court had jurisdiction because the parties were citizens of different states. He sued Apple Corp., Apple Inc., Apple National and International, Leslie Jobs, and Leslie Jobs Dobles.
Calvino alleged that the defendants conspired against him; exploited him; spied on him; committed extortion and “computer theft”; harassed him; and stole his trade secrets. He also alleged that features of Apple cellphones reflected his intellectual property, including cellphone color, screen and home-button changes, camera upgrades, device-location capabilities, and privacy and encryption improvements.
The court had previously allowed Calvino to proceed without paying filing fees. That status required the court to screen the complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that it had to read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously and interpret it to present the strongest claims reasonably 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. It therefore concluded that the action was frivolous.
The court explained that a frivolous claim lacks a reasonable legal or factual basis. It also considered whether Calvino should be allowed to amend the complaint. The court declined to grant leave to amend because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment.
The court noted that Calvino had filed numerous frivolous actions in that court and had previously been warned that further frivolous or abusive litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new civil actions without the court’s permission. The court said that he remained warned, but the opinion did not impose a new filing restriction in this order.
Disposition
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Calvino permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The clerk 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.