Calvino v. Navarro

Background

Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action without a lawyer. On February 4, 2020, the court had granted his request to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP.

Calvino used the court’s general complaint form. He checked federal-question jurisdiction and identified alleged “conspiracy” involving scams, computer theft, harassment, and electronic communications. He listed Massachusetts, New York, national, and international locations. His allegations referred to Andrea Navarro, Hector Navarro, Bernadino Escalera, Rosa Cirino, and Miguel Sosa, but the opinion quotes the allegations as written and does not describe a specific federal cause of action beyond the references in the complaint.

Legal standard

The court explained that it must dismiss an IFP complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable legal or factual basis. The court also stated that it must read a complaint filed without a lawyer liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims the allegations suggest.

Court’s analysis

Even applying the more forgiving standard for a self-represented litigant, the court found that Calvino’s claims were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. The court explained that although self-represented plaintiffs are generally given an opportunity to amend defective complaints, amendment is not required when it would be futile. It concluded that the defects could not be cured by amendment.

The opinion also discussed Calvino’s litigation history in the Southern District of New York. It stated that he had filed 96 actions between December 17, 2019, and January 31, 2020, and that more than 70 had been dismissed as frivolous. The court had previously warned him that additional vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order restricting new IFP filings unless he first obtained permission. The opinion further stated that Calvino had not responded to an earlier order to show why such a restriction should not be imposed and that he had continued filing actions after that order. The court had also directed him to show cause why filing restrictions should not be imposed.

Disposition

The court dismissed Calvino’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It did not grant leave to amend. The court warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in restrictions on future IFP filings. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Calvino and note service on the docket.