Calvino v. In need of new name emerge.

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. filed a complaint using the court’s general complaint form and asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court had granted that request on January 31, 2020.

Calvino checked the form’s box for federal-question jurisdiction. In the section asking which federal constitutional or statutory rights were violated, he wrote that he needed a new name because of identity theft, bank and mortgage fraud, and valuables that had been taken. He left blank the sections asking where and when the alleged events occurred.

Calvino also alleged that he used different names because of a bad situation, lacked privacy, was being watched with hidden electronic devices, and did not know whether attorneys claiming to represent him were honest. He sought to place his identities, property, businesses, money, and assets under a new name.

Legal standard

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed without prepaying fees if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also must dismiss a case when it lacks authority to hear the subject matter. Although the court must read a self-represented person’s complaint liberally and consider its strongest possible claims, a claim is frivolous when it has no arguable legal or factual basis.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court held that, even when read with the special consideration given to self-represented filings, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It therefore dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The court explained that self-represented plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, but amendment is not required when it would be futile. Because the defects could not be corrected by amendment, the court declined to grant Calvino leave to amend.

Litigation history and filing warning

The court stated that Calvino had filed 96 actions in that court between December 17, 2019, and January 31, 2020, and that more than 70 had been dismissed as frivolous. The court also stated that Calvino had filed 52 of those 96 actions after a January 10, 2020 order directing him to explain why he should not be barred from filing additional actions without first obtaining permission. The opinion says Calvino had not responded to that order.

The court further stated that, because of Calvino’s repeated, abusive, bad-faith, and vexatious litigation, it had directed him on January 31, 2020, to explain why filing restrictions should not be imposed. In this order, the court warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without prepaying fees unless he first received permission. The order did not itself state that such a filing bar was imposed.

Disposition

The complaint was dismissed as frivolous. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Calvino permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket.