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
Taylor Swift violated his rights. By order dated December 23,
2019, 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.
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. After checking the box on the form to
invoke the Court's federal question jurisdiction, he
lists the following (in the section in which he is asked to
state which of his federal constitutional or federal
statutory rights have been violated): “obstruction of
my civil right[, ] obstruction of electronic communication[,
] ilegal [sic] spying, misleading, Harassment.” (ECF
No. 2 at 2.)Where asked to list the place(s) of
occurrence, Plaintiff writes “[h]arassment, political
difamation [sic]” and where asked to state the date of
occurrence, he writes “curred [sic].”
(Id. at 5.)
alleges “Electronic stacking [sic], Electronic
Difamation [sic][, ] Electronic Harrasment [sic], Electronic
spying[, ] obstruct civil right[s], obstruct electronic
communication[.]” (Id. at 5.) In the section
in which Plaintiff is asked to state his injuries, he writes:
“emotional damage, mental health Damage[, ] Damage to
mei [sic] personal image.” (Id. at 6.) Where
asked to state the relief he seeks, Plaintiff writes:
“Estimate value pending.” (Id.)
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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
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.
has filed 41 actions in this Court from December 17, 2019,
through January 7, 2020. Fifteen of these actions have been
dismissed as frivolous, and Plaintiff has been warned that
further vexatious or frivolous litigation in this Court will
result in an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 barring him
from filing new actions IFP unless he receives prior
permission. See e.g., Calvino v Barn, ECF
1:20-CV-0157, 3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2019); Calvino v.
Hadid, ECF1:20-CV-0138, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020);
Calvino v. Little Wane Father, ECF 1:20-CV-0134, 4
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020); Calvino v. Sanchez,
ECF1:20-CV-0065, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2020); Calvino v.
Sportefy Inc., ECF1:19-CV-11956, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9,
2020); Calvino v. Cirino, ECF 1:19-CV-11953, 4
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2020); Calvino v All the women that sue
me Int'l and Nat'l, ECF 1:19-CV-11914, 4
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2020); Calvino v. Salad, ECF
1:19-CV-11827, 4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2020); Calvino v.
Trainor, ECF ...