Calvino v. N.Y. L.A.G.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Calvino v. N.Y.L.A.G., Chief Judge McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ernest Calvino, Jr.'s action was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
Ernest Calvino, Jr. sued the New York Legal Assistance Group, alleging that people at its legal-advice clinic were dishonest, disrespectful, unprofessional, and improperly shared information. He sought respect, confidentiality, and free unlimited legal advice from a disinterested attorney.
The court reviewed the complaint under the rules for cases filed without paying fees. It found that the allegations were irrational and had no legal basis. Because the defects could not be fixed, the court dismissed the action as frivolous and did not allow another amendment.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Mr. Calvino was denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. N.Y. L.A.G. · No. 1:20-cv-00377
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 31, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino, Jr. proceeded without a lawyer and was permitted to file the case without prepaying fees. His amended complaint sued the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), which operates a legal-advice clinic for people representing themselves. The opinion states that the clinic is independent from the court and provides confidential legal advice.
Calvino identified the federal basis of his claims as “lack of honesty, lack [of] professionalism, disrespect.” He alleged that people working at the clinic were not honest or professional, that one person said they were connected with people on the other side of a lawsuit, and that another person acted like someone he knew. He also said he had heard from unknown sources that clinic staff had delivered documents for him, but he did not know whether that was true. He described his injuries as stress, disrespect, and being misled. He requested respect, people who would protect his private information, and free unlimited legal advice from a disinterested attorney.
Court’s analysis
Because Calvino had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or presented no subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it had to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously and consider the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
The court concluded that, even under that generous reading, Calvino’s claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. It therefore determined that the complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be cured. It declined to grant leave to amend.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Calvino a copy of the order and note service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The opinion states that Calvino remained warned that further frivolous or vexatious litigation could lead to an order barring him from filing new civil actions in that court without permission while seeking to proceed without paying fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.