Calvino v. Kedo Cap
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00565
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ernest Calvino Jr. v. Kedo Cap, Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Calvino filed without required court permission.
Ernest Calvino Jr.; the dismissal applies to this action against Kedo Cap, et al.
What happened
Ernest Calvino Jr. filed this new case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. Before he filed, the court had ordered him to explain why it should not require permission for future fee-free cases. He did not respond, and the court later imposed that requirement.
Calvino filed this action on January 17, 2020, but did not ask for permission as the court’s February 11 order required. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to comply with that order.
Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The opinion does not address the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Kedo Cap · No. 1:20-cv-00565
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
On January 10, 2020, the court ordered Ernest Calvino Jr. to show cause—meaning to explain—why he should not be barred from filing future actions in the court without paying filing fees unless he first obtained permission. The court stated that Calvino did not file the required declaration in response.
On February 11, 2020, the court barred Calvino, effective January 10, 2020, from filing any new action without paying filing fees unless he first obtained leave from the court. The opinion refers to that ruling as having been entered in a prior related proceeding.
This Action
Calvino filed this new pro se case on January 17, 2020, and sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees. He did not seek the leave required by the February 11 order.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for Calvino’s failure to comply with the February 11 order. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar refiling, although the opinion states that Calvino would need to comply with the prior permission requirement.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Calvino permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The order does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.