Calvino v. Swift
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00652
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Swift, Judge McMahon dismissed Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action against Taylor Swift was dismissed. The ruling also denied Calvino permission to appeal without paying fees.
What happened
In Calvino v. Swift, Ernest Calvino Jr., representing himself, claimed that Taylor Swift used electronic devices to harm and harass him, obstruct his communications, interfere with a complaint, and conspire regarding his property and money. He sought justice, information, and monetary damages.
The court had allowed Calvino to proceed without paying filing fees but found that his allegations were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court also described the action as part of his pattern of frivolous and vexatious filings, after earlier warnings about possible restrictions on future fee-free cases.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under the federal fee-waiver screening statute and declined to allow an amended complaint because amendment would be futile. The court also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Swift · No. 1:20-cv-00652
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought this action against Taylor Swift while representing himself. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying filing fees. He invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that Swift conspired to harm him. His allegations, quoted in the opinion, involved electronic devices, hidden audio and video devices, blocked communications, interference with a complaint to the Drug Enforcement Administration, a passport allegedly made without his consent, harassment, and a conspiracy concerning his assets, property, businesses, and money. He requested justice, information, and monetary damages.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed by a person allowed to proceed without paying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that type of lawsuit. A claim is frivolous when it has no reasonable basis in law or fact. The court also must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the subject matter. Although courts must read self-represented complaints liberally, that does not prevent dismissal of claims that are irrational or lack any legal theory.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that Calvino had filed numerous frivolous actions in the Southern District of New York since December 17, 2019. It also noted that he had previously been warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to a restriction on filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained court permission. The court had directed him to explain why such a restriction should not be imposed, and he filed this action afterward.
Even when read with the special consideration given to self-represented pleadings, the court found that Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no supporting legal theory. It characterized the action as a continuation of his pattern of frivolous and vexatious litigation. The court further held that the defects could not be fixed by amendment, so it declined to give him permission to amend the complaint.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of 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.