Calvino v. Jobs
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00758
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Calvino v. Jobs, Judge McMahon dismissed the frivolous complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.
Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action was dismissed as frivolous without leave to amend. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal; the order did not impose the filing restrictions discussed in the opinion.
What happened
In Calvino v. Jobs, Ernest Calvino Jr., representing himself, alleged that the defendants used hidden electronic devices and took his trade secrets. He sought money and information, and had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court found that the allegations were irrational and that no legal theory supported them. It also found that amending the complaint would not fix its defects, so it did not allow an amended complaint.
Judge McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Jobs · No. 1:20-cv-00758
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 4, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. filed the action without a lawyer and asserted federal-question jurisdiction. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. He described his claims as conspiracies involving computer theft, computer fraud, scams, harassment, and electronic extortion with audio.
Calvino alleged that a woman who met him in the Bronx in spring 2018 monitored him using hidden electronic, medical, audio, and video devices. He also alleged that she and her corporation took and used his intellectual property and trade secrets, including alleged features or improvements involving colors, a home button, signals, screen upgrades, and customer privacy. He claimed losses of trade secrets and money, as well as stress, pain, emotional damage, and mental damage. He requested money, information about how the information was obtained, and an explanation of why the defendants did not approach him.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a complaint filed without prepaying fees if it is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also noted that dismissal is required when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking.
Even after reading the complaint generously because Calvino was representing himself, the court concluded that his claims were irrational and had no legal theory supporting them. The court determined that the defects could not be fixed by amendment. Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend, the court found that amendment would be futile here.
The opinion also described Calvino’s repeated prior frivolous litigation in the court. It stated that he had been warned that further abusive or frivolous litigation could lead to restrictions on filing new civil actions without permission. The court had also directed him in a related proceeding to explain why filing restrictions should not be imposed. This order did not itself impose those restrictions.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and declined to grant leave to amend. It directed the clerk to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.