United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
COLLEEN McMAHON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
brings this action pro se, invoking the Court's
diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff sues an attorney, seeking
to have the attorney represent Plaintiff in his legal
matters, including his “civil, criminal, federal[, and]
international cases.” By order dated January 10, 2020,
the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without
prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis
(IFP). The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set
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 invokes the Court's diversity jurisdiction
and brings suit against William Barn, who he identifies as an
attorney. Plaintiff makes the following allegations:
He knows me since 2018. [H]e [k]nows my property[ies],
bus[i]nesses and other things related. He can represent[t] me
in most of my legal matters at civil, criminal, federal,
international cases. I am requesting his services to protect,
find and gain my propert[ies], bus[i]nesses, and other things
related of the above mention[ed].
(Compl., ECF No. 2, at 2.) Plaintiff states that he is suing
for “los[s] of time” and “request[s] legal
services.” (Id. at 6.)
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.
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 complaints
cannot be cured with an amendment, the Court declines to
grant Plaintiff leave to amend and dismisses this action as
frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
has filed more than a dozen actions in the past month, many
of which have already been dismissed as frivolous. See,
e.g., Calvino v. Jones, ECF 1:19-CV-11601 (CM) (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 23, 2019). Plaintiff has already been warned that
further vexatious or frivolous litigation in this Court will
result in an order barring him under 28 U.S.C. § 1651
from filing new ...