Calvino v. Ter. parties stake holder
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00566
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Judge McMahon dismissed Calvino v. Ter. Parties Stake Holder as frivolous, finding the pro se complaint irrational and unsupported by any legal theory.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s complaint was dismissed at the court’s screening stage. He was not allowed to amend the complaint, and the court denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
What happened
In Ernest Calvino Jr. v. Ter. Parties Stake Holder, Calvino said that other people had his money, property, businesses, assets, and documents. He sought their return and money damages for garnishment, emotional harm, stress, lost time, and lost intellectual property.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules for cases filed without paying fees. It found that the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported the claims. The court also decided that amending the complaint would be futile, so it did not allow an amended complaint.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous under federal law. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Calvino permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Ter. parties stake holder · No. 1:20-cv-00566
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 28, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. filed the action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court had granted that request on January 28, 2020. Calvino invoked federal-question jurisdiction and identified the locations of the events as New York and Massachusetts, occurring since 2018.
On the complaint form, Calvino wrote that there had been a failure to transfer assets, property, money, businesses, and matters involving garnishment. He alleged that other people possessed money, property, businesses, and assets belonging to him and would not return them. He sought the return, transfer, and delivery of those items and related documents, as well as money damages. He described his injuries as garnishment, emotional damages, stress, lost time, lost intellectual property, and disrespect.
Legal standard
The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without paying fees if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims the allegations suggest.
A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The court cited the rule that factual allegations may be frivolous when they are irrational or wholly incredible, or when the legal theory is indisputably meritless.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that, even when read with the special consideration given to complaints filed without a lawyer, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court determined that the defects could not be corrected by amendment and therefore declined to give Calvino permission to amend the complaint.
The opinion also stated that Calvino had filed numerous frivolous actions in the court. It referred to prior warnings that further frivolous or vexatious litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing new civil actions without paying fees unless the court gave permission. The court said that Calvino remained warned; it did not impose a new filing bar in this order.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Calvino’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.