Calvino v. D.E.A.

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. filed a complaint against D.E.A. after the court granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees. On the complaint form, he invoked federal-question jurisdiction and wrote that he was requesting information about himself and information about investigations concerning him. He also sought information about complaints he had filed in the past and information for court purposes. The complaint identified places including New York and Springfield, Massachusetts, and stated that the events had occurred since early 2018.

The opinion describes Calvino as a person representing himself. The court read his allegations liberally, as required for such filings, but concluded that the allegations did not identify a legally viable claim.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a court must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. A frivolous claim is one that lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Ruling on the complaint

The court held that, even under the liberal reading required for a self-represented filing, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It therefore dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court declined to give Calvino permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Litigation history and proposed filing restrictions

The court stated that Calvino had filed 93 actions in that court between December 17, 2019, and January 28, 2020, and that more than 70 had been dismissed as frivolous. The court also stated that Calvino had been warned that further frivolous or abusive litigation could lead to restrictions on new filings. An earlier order had directed him to explain why he should not be barred from filing new cases without first obtaining permission, but he had not responded. The court found that he had filed 49 additional actions after that earlier order.

Because a filing injunction cannot be imposed without notice and an opportunity to respond, the court ordered Calvino to show cause in writing within ten days why filing restrictions should not be entered. The proposed restrictions would require him to submit a motion for permission to file each new action, explain why the action should be allowed and why the court would be a proper venue, attach the filing-restriction order, pay the filing fees or request permission to proceed without prepayment, and provide a sworn statement that the filing was not frivolous, made in bad faith, or brought for an improper purpose.

The order stated that if Calvino did not submit a declaration within ten days, or if the declaration did not show good cause, the listed restrictions would be imposed. The Clerk would then be directed not to open noncompliant submissions as new civil actions, and such submissions would be discarded. Thus, the order gave Calvino an opportunity to respond; it did not itself impose those restrictions.

Other disposition

The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Calvino and keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Calvino permission to appeal without prepaying fees.