Calvino v. Tik Tok
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00759
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re: Ernest Calvino: Judge McMahon dismissed his new cases without prejudice because he sought IFP status without required court permission.
Ernest Calvino and the five new cases he filed; each case was dismissed without prejudice, and in forma pauperis status was denied for an appeal.
What happened
In re: Ernest Calvino concerns five new cases that Calvino filed after January 10, 2020. He was representing himself, asked to proceed without paying filing costs, and had not obtained the court's required permission.
The court had previously ordered Calvino to obtain permission before filing any new case under that procedure. After he did not respond, the court barred such filings without permission as of January 10, 2020.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the five actions without prejudice for failing to comply with the February 11, 2020 order. She also denied Calvino permission to proceed without paying filing costs on appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. Tik Tok · No. 1:20-cv-00759
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 19, 2020
Background
On January 10, 2020, the court ordered Ernest Calvino to show cause why he should not be barred from filing additional cases in the Southern District of New York under the procedure for litigants who cannot prepay court costs, known as in forma pauperis status. Calvino did not respond. On February 11, 2020, the court barred him, effective January 10, 2020, from filing any new case under that procedure without first obtaining the court's permission.
Calvino then filed the five cases identified in the order after January 10, 2020. The opinion states that these were new cases filed by Calvino without a lawyer, that he sought in forma pauperis status, and that he had not requested permission to file them.
Ruling
The court concluded that the cases had to be dismissed because Calvino failed to comply with the February 11, 2020 order. Judge McMahon dismissed each action without prejudice, meaning the order did not state that refiling was barred. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Calvino and docket it in all five cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.