Calvino v. Salad

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action against Javi Salad and Javi Salad Dobles using the court’s general complaint form. He proceeded without a lawyer. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.

Calvino checked the form’s box for federal-question jurisdiction. In response to the question asking which federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated, he wrote: “scam, Lack of transfer Asset, money, Gardnashment.” He stated that the events occurred in New York and Massachusetts and alleged that “unknow sources claims he have busnesses, propertys, money asset that belong to my[.] He is probably work for D.E.A.” He described his injuries as “Gardnashment, lost of time, stress” and requested the return of assets, property, businesses, and money, along with monetary relief.

Legal Standard

For a plaintiff proceeding without paying filing fees, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune from that relief, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A claim is frivolous when it has no 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. Courts must read pleadings filed without a lawyer liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest claims they suggest.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that, even after applying the special consideration given to pleadings filed without a lawyer, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory on which he could rely. The court recognized that it generally gives a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but it found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured.

The court also noted that Calvino had filed other frivolous actions and had previously been warned that additional vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new civil actions without the court’s permission. The court stated that he remained warned, but the order did not impose a new filing restriction in this case.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court directed the clerk to mail the order to Calvino and note service on the docket. The court further certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.