From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Calvino v. U.S. Dist. Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jan 22, 2020
20-CV-0236 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2020)

Opinion

20-CV-0236 (CM)

01-22-2020

ERNEST CALVINO JR., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, Defendant.


ORDER OF DISMISSAL :

Plaintiff brings this action pro se. By order dated January 21, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The Court dismisses this action for the reasons set forth below.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, when the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the "strongest [claims] that they suggest," Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted, emphasis in original).

A claim is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (holding that "a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible"); Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437 ("[A]n action is 'frivolous' when either: (1) the factual contentions are clearly baseless . . . ; or (2) the claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, using the Court's general complaint form, brings this action against this Court. He claims that the federal constitutional or statutory basis for this action is "Garnashment, Lack to Deliver Returnd, transfer Asset in a respectfull and formal way." (ECF No. 2, 2.) Plaintiff asserts the following facts, verbatim:

There had been court littigation on me behalf national in the United States and International. I am searching for information, document, transactions, Attorneys and the money received from this litigation in additing i am searching for me propertys, busnesses, Asset that I suppose to obtain from this littigation.
(Id. at 5 ¶ III.) Plaintiff seeks return of property.

DISCUSSION

A. Frivolous Complaint

Even when read with the "special solicitude" due pro se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d at 475, Plaintiff's claims rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory on which he can rely. See Denton, 504 U.S. at 33; Livingston, 141 F.3d at 437.

District courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, but leave to amend is not required where it would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Because the defects in Plaintiff's complaint cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend and dismisses this action as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

B. Plaintiff's Litigation History

Since December 17, 2019, Plaintiff has filed numerous frivolous actions in this Court. He filed this and other frivolous complaints even after the Court warned him that further vexatious or frivolous litigation in this Court will result in an order barring him from filing new actions IFP unless he receives prior permission. See, e.g., Calvino v. Jones, ECF 1:19-CV-11601, 3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2019). On January 10, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any further actions in this Court IFP without first obtaining permission from the Court to file his complaint. See Calvino v. Fauto L., ECF 1:19-CV-11958, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2020).

CONCLUSION

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Court dismisses this action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 22, 2020

New York, New York

/s/_________

COLLEEN McMAHON

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Calvino v. U.S. Dist. Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Jan 22, 2020
20-CV-0236 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2020)
Case details for

Calvino v. U.S. Dist. Court

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST CALVINO JR., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Jan 22, 2020

Citations

20-CV-0236 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2020)