Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 28, 2020

Calvino v. Romanian from the Jaiguar Dealer

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-00651
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Calvino v. Romanian from the Jaiguar Dealer, Judge McMahon dismissed the frivolous complaint and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Who this affects

Ernest Calvino Jr.’s case was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees.

What happened

In Ernest Calvino Jr. v. Romanian from the Jaiguar Dealer in 11 Avenue, Mr. Calvino sued the dealer and its manager. He alleged that people had misled him and claimed that various properties, businesses, and assets belonged to him.

Mr. Calvino represented himself and asked to proceed without paying court fees. His complaint sought the return or transfer of property, businesses, assets, and money, and described his injuries as garnishment, stress, and disrespect.

Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the allegations were irrational and had no legal basis. She dismissed the complaint as frivolous, denied permission to amend, and ruled that Mr. Calvino could not appeal without paying the required fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Calvino v. Romanian from the Jaiguar Dealer · No. 1:20-cv-00651
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 28, 2020

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. filed the action without a lawyer against Romanian from the Jaiguar Dealer in 11 Avenue and Romanian Manager. He alleged that the manager of the Jaguar dealer had misled him. He also wrote that unknown and known people claimed ownership of many properties, car dealerships, businesses, and other assets, and asked that those assets be investigated and delivered or transferred to him. He listed his injuries as garnishment, stress, and disrespect, and sought the return or transfer of property, businesses, assets, and money.

The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying court fees. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the rule requiring dismissal of a fee-free complaint that is frivolous. A complaint is frivolous when its factual allegations are clearly irrational or when it relies on a legal theory that has no arguable basis. Even after reading the complaint liberally and giving special consideration to a self-represented plaintiff, the court found that the claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them.

The court also considered whether Mr. Calvino should be allowed to amend the complaint. It concluded that the defects could not be corrected through amendment and therefore declined to grant permission to amend.

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order also noted that Mr. Calvino had filed other frivolous actions and had previously been warned that further frivolous or vexatious litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new civil actions without the court’s permission.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.