Calvino v. Rivera
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00872
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Rivera, Judge McMahon dismissed Ernest Calvino Jr.’s pro se complaint as frivolous because its allegations were irrational and legally unsupported.
Ernest Calvino, Jr.’s claims were dismissed, and he was not allowed to amend the complaint or appeal without paying filing fees. Joel Rivera and the other defendants were affected because the action against them was dismissed.
What happened
In Calvino v. Rivera, Ernest Calvino, Jr., representing himself, claimed that relatives of his mother were involved in electronic harassment, computer theft, and mishandling money, property, and intellectual property. He said the events involved New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and other countries.
The court screened the complaint because Calvino had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. It concluded that his allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported his claims. The court also found that changing the complaint would not fix these problems.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as frivolous and did not allow Calvino to amend it. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Rivera · No. 1:20-cv-00872
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 3, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction for “conspiracy of scam” and “conspiracy of electronic harassment.” He alleged that people related to his mother were involved in electronic harassment and a computer-theft investigation, and that they had possibly taken assets belonging to him, including money and other valuable items. He also referred to intellectual property, assets, property, and business interests that he said had not been transferred or paid for. He stated that the claims arose in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and internationally.
The court had previously allowed Calvino to proceed without paying filing fees. That status required the court to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a qualifying case that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a frivolous claim lacks an arguable basis in fact or law. It also said that it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously and interpret it to present the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations. Even with that approach, the court found that Calvino’s claims were irrational and that he had no legal theory on which to rely.
Although courts generally give self-represented plaintiffs an opportunity to amend defective complaints, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured. The opinion also stated that Calvino had filed nearly one hundred actions in the court between mid-December 2019 and February 3, 2020, and that more than seventy had already been dismissed as frivolous. The court noted that it had directed him to explain why filing restrictions should not be imposed because of this litigation history.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Calvino’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and declined to grant leave to amend. The court certified under § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.