United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
COLLEEN MCMAHON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
appearing pro se, brings these actions invoking the
Court's federal question jurisdiction. By orders dated
December 20, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's requests
to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma
pauperis (IFP). The Court dismisses the complaints for
the reasons set forth below.
Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 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), 1915A(b); see Abbas v.
Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). 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
is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 324-25 (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, 32-33 (1992) (holding
that “finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or
the wholly incredible”); Livingston v. Adirondack
Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998)
(“[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
Ernest Calvino, Jr. has filed six pro se actions
this week. In the complaint under docket number ECF
1:19-CV-11610, Plaintiff names an individual (Anneka C.) and
makes the following allegations:
Fraund, misleading me and other, gardneshment, lack of
support . . . .
She mislead me and other, fraundend married me without my
signature . . .
Stole money busness trans., mislead me and other, morgashes
(ECF No. 2, at 5-6.) Plaintiff alleges that both he and
Defendant Anneka C. reside in New York. (Id. at
complaint under docket number ECF 1:19-CV-11601, 2, Plaintiff
names Defendant Loretta Jones, as well as unidentified staff
that appear to be associated with “Bronx Works, ”
a nonprofit entity. Plaintiff states that he and Defendants
reside in New York and alleges the following: “The
place has bad management Lack of responsibility for security
The staff are corrupt.” (Compl. at 5.)
complaint under docket number ECF 1:19-CV-11611, Plaintiff
makes the following allegations:
I file a complain in the past in New York City and he was
assign to the case, I saw him in Holyoke M.A. at a book store
and he told me to visit the M. N.C. A. boys and girls club in
Holyoke to talk about the case, the reason I am questioning
him is because he know Jesus Rosario from 329 tokoneke Rd.
holyke M.A., he is son of a girl call Rosa cirino a girl that
I was temp. staying with this girl call Rosa, her sons,
family and peers have Asset that belong to me in addition
they as conspayer against me to annoni. Steal information