Calvino v. D.E.A.

Background

The court stated that Ernest Calvino Jr. filed 101 actions in the Southern District of New York between December 17, 2019, and February 12, 2020. More than 80 of those actions had been dismissed as frivolous. The court also stated that it had previously warned Calvino that additional vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring him from filing new actions without first obtaining permission.

On January 10, 2020, the court directed Calvino to explain why it should not prohibit him from filing additional actions without permission. The opinion states that Calvino did not respond and instead filed 56 more actions. On February 11, 2020, the court barred him from filing any new action in the court without first obtaining permission.

The court had dismissed this action by an order dated January 31, 2020, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which permits dismissal during the court’s screening of a complaint filed without prepaying fees when the complaint is frivolous. The court also directed Calvino to explain why it should not impose a filing restriction in this action. The opinion states that he did not respond, although he filed four additional actions after the January 31 order.

Filing restriction

The court required Calvino to seek permission before filing any new action in the Southern District of New York. To request permission, he must file a motion titled “Motion for Leave to File” that explains why the new action should be permitted and why the court is a proper venue. He must attach this order, either pay the full filing fees or request permission to proceed without prepaying them, and submit a statement under penalty of perjury that the claims are not frivolous or brought in bad faith, that the action is not being filed for an improper purpose such as harassment or unnecessary delay, and that the filing complies with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court’s Local Rules.

The Clerk was directed not to accept a complaint from Calvino unless he complied with those requirements.

Disposition

The court dismissed Calvino’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It imposed the permission requirement for future actions and directed the Clerk to mail him the order and record service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon.