Calvino v. Conde

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action without a lawyer. He asserted that the court had jurisdiction because his claims raised a federal question. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Calvino described the federal constitutional or statutory basis of his action as “lack of transfer asset, money, bus[i]nesses, gar[nish]ment, neglect of the above mention.” He alleged that third parties, including Gre Nunez and Inez Conde, were connected to a data breach involving intellectual property. He also alleged that they were seeking his property, assets, money, and other belongings. He identified his injuries as the garnishment or failure to transfer money, assets, property, and businesses, and asked the court to require delivery or transfer of those items to him.

Court’s Analysis

When a person is allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, federal law requires the court to dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s authority. The court must read a self-represented person’s complaint generously, but it still must dismiss claims that lack a reasonable factual or legal basis.

The court concluded that, even when read generously, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It also concluded that the defects could not be fixed by amending the complaint.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and declined to give Calvino permission to amend. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The opinion notes that Calvino had filed other actions the court considered frivolous and had previously been warned that further such litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new civil actions without the court’s permission.