United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge:
appearing pro se, 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 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 (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, 32-33 (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 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
drafted this complaint using the Court's general
complaint form. Plaintiff does not check a box to indicate
the basis for federal-court jurisdiction. But in the section
in which he is asked to describe which of his federal
constitutional or statutory rights have been violated, he
writes, “Theft of legal Documents, Theft of
Information, perjury.” (ECF No. 2, at 2.)
section of the form in which he is asked to state the facts
that support his claim, Plaintiff alleges the following:
“Theres [sic] people that claim to support me legal[ly]
and I have not see no result, this people had intercepted
Document in different places with my information, my Asset,
my private item and other, my Identity had been stolend
[sic], my signature had be[en] du[p]licated without my
permis[s]ion.” (Id. at 5.)
describes his injuries as “Gardneshment [sic] (lost
wages), Emotional Distress, Damage to me person image,
” and in the section of the form in which he is asked
to state the relief he requests, Plaintiff writes:
“money estimate value the most I can get back, transfer
of Assert Justice but theres some ex[c]eption.”
(Id. at 6.)
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.
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 the action as
frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
has filed 41 actions in this Court from December 17, 2019,
through January 7, 2020. The Court has dismissed 11 of these
actions as frivolous, and has warned Plaintiff 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 in this Court unless he receives prior
permission. See Calvino v. Hadid, ECF 1:20-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, ECF 1:20-CV-0065, 4 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 9, 2020); Calvino v. Sportefy Inc., ECF
1:19-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