United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Colleen McMahon, Chief United States District Judge.
Ernest Calvino Jr. brings this action alleging that Defendant
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
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
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
drafted this complaint using the general complaint form
provided by this Court. Plaintiff does not check a box on the
form to indicate the basis for federal-court jurisdiction in
his case, but in the section in which he is asked to state
which of his federal constitutional or federal statutory
rights have been violated, he writes: “corruption,
obstruction of my legal rights, conspiracy of scam[.]”
(ECF No. 2 at 2.) Where asked to list the place(s) of
occurrence, Plaintiff writes “Holyoke, Massachusetts.
Springfield Massachusetts” and where asked to state the
date of occurrence, he leaves that section blank.
(Id. at 5.)
alleges the following:
I went there a few times asking for information related to me
and they said that there was nothing in Holyoke, meaning in
the computer of the City of Holyoke, City hall, I ask if I
was married there and they said no, I ask about a female
friend and nothing, the clerk was a gay person, I went to
different room Tax collecte [sic], the Alex Morr. (mayor)
there was nothing for me there meaning about information,
marrie [sic] records about me and womans [sic] that probably
married me there without my sign[.]
when read with the “special solicitude” due
pro se pleadings, Triestman, 470 F.3d 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. §
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 ...