Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 18, 2020

Calvino v. Trainor

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-00727
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Calvino v. Trainor, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Calvino filed without required permission after an IFP filing bar.

Who this affects

Ernest Calvino Jr.’s action was dismissed without prejudice because he filed it without the permission required by an earlier court order. The court also denied fee assistance for an appeal.

What happened

Calvino v. Trainor involved Ernest Calvino Jr.’s attempt to file a new case without a lawyer and receive court-fee assistance. A prior order barred him from filing new cases without paying the fee unless he first obtained permission from the court.

Calvino filed this case seeking that fee assistance but did not ask for the required permission. The court dismissed the action without prejudice. It also denied fee assistance for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon issued the dismissal on February 18, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Calvino v. Trainor · No. 1:20-cv-00727
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Feb. 18, 2020

Background

The court had previously ordered Calvino to explain why he should not be barred from filing additional actions in the court without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained permission. Calvino did not submit the required declaration. The court then barred him, effective January 10, 2020, from filing any new action without paying the fee unless he first obtained leave to file.

Calvino filed this new case on January 27, 2020, and sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. He did not seek the court’s required permission to file the action.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Calvino failed to comply with the earlier order. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a later filing, although the opinion does not describe what steps would be required for any later filing.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Calvino a copy of the order and record service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.