Calvino v. Mainchance

Background

Ernest Calvino, Jr., appearing without a lawyer (pro se), sued Main Chance, described as a nonprofit drop-in center for homeless individuals. He alleged that the center changed its meal hours, denied him the opportunity to stay, and treated him disrespectfully. He attributed the alleged discrimination to earlier confrontations at the center in 2017. He sought damages.

The court had previously allowed Calvino to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion also states that he had filed approximately 45 actions within the preceding month and that the court had directed him to explain why he should not be barred from filing additional cases without paying fees unless he first obtained permission.

Claims and Analysis

Because Calvino invoked federal law, the court construed the complaint as possibly asserting claims under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Title II prohibits covered public accommodations affecting interstate commerce from discriminating based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The court held that Calvino did not allege facts about any of those characteristics or facts showing that Main Chance’s conduct was based on his membership in one of those groups. Instead, his allegations suggested that he was treated differently because of his prior confrontations at the center. The court therefore concluded that the allegations did not state a Title II discrimination claim.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law—that is, using government authority or conduct fairly attributable to the government. The court found that Main Chance was a private entity and that Calvino did not allege that it acted under color of state law when providing meals or other social services. The court also noted that, even if Main Chance were a state actor, the allegations about changing meal times would not establish a constitutional violation.

Disposition

The court dismissed Calvino’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires screening and dismissal of a fee-waived complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court found that amendment would be futile and therefore declined to grant leave to amend. It also declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Calvino permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.