Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Calvino v. Little Wane Father

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 9, 2020

ERNEST CALVINO JR., Plaintiff,
v.
LITTLE WANE FATHER; LITTLE WANE SON; LITTLE WANE DOBLES, Defendants.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Ernest Calvino Jr. brings this action alleging that Defendants violated his rights. By order dated January 9, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (IFP). For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the complaint.

         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 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 drafted this complaint using the general complaint form provided by this Court. After checking the boxes on the form to invoke the Court's federal question and diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, he writes the following (in the section in which he is asked to state which of his federal constitutional or federal statutory rights have been violated): “conspiracy of extortion, conspiracy of explotation [sic][, ] conspiracy of scam, threat, harassment, conspiracy of spying to obstruct legal rights[, ] theft of my personal information.” (ECF No. 2 at 2.)[1] Where asked to list the place(s) of occurrence, Plaintiff writes “N.Y., M.A.” and where asked to state the date of occurrence, he leaves that section blank. (Id. at 5.)

         Plaintiff alleges the following:

They claim they support me, the two African American had threat [sic] me in the past. Today he was probably the one that told me to sue an [sic] specific person if not he was going to kill me. He probably know [sic] 50¢ the Doble [sic] that the segun [sic] shift supervicer [sic] of the Bronx work. He the Father or the son littler Wane the Africa America Rap is for sure in conspiracy to exploid [sic] me, extor [sic] me, steal private information, misleading me to commit errors.

(Id.)

         DISCUSSION

         Even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F. 3 d at 474-75, 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. The Court therefore dismisses this action as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

         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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.