Calvino v. Citibank
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00519
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Calvino v. Citibank, Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se action as frivolous and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action against Citibank was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
What happened
In Calvino v. Citibank, Ernest Calvino Jr., representing himself, claimed that Citibank used his idea for wireless debit-card transactions without permission or payment. He said this involved lost intellectual property, including a trade secret, and sought money.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules for cases filed without paying fees. It concluded that the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported the claims. The court also decided that changing the complaint would not fix the problems, so it did not allow an amended complaint.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous under federal law. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Citibank · No. 1:20-cv-00519
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. filed the action without a lawyer and said the court had jurisdiction because of the parties' diversity of citizenship. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees.
Calvino identified the federal constitutional or statutory basis of his action as a “conspiracy of using intellectual property without permission.” He alleged that Citibank was using wireless debit-card transactions, which he described as his idea and part of his intellectual property, without his agreement and without paying him. He described his injury as the loss of intellectual property, including a trade secret, and requested money damages in an amount to be determined after investigation.
Court’s analysis
For a complaint filed without paying fees, federal law requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it must read complaints filed by people without lawyers generously and interpret them to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
Even under that generous reading, the court found that Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory on which he could rely. The court stated that the defects could not be corrected by amendment. It therefore declined to give Calvino permission to file an amended complaint.
The court also noted that Calvino had filed numerous frivolous actions in that court and had previously been warned that additional vexatious or frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing future civil actions without the court’s permission.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon also directed the clerk 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.