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. New York City Police

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 15, 2020

ERNEST CALVINO, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
NEW YORK CITY POLICE; ROBERT C., Undercover agent of New York PD, Defendants.

          ORDER OF DISMISSAL

          COLLEEN McMAHON, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff brings this action pro se. By order dated January 8, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court dismisses this action for the reasons set forth below.

         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, or portion thereof, 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

         Following are Plaintiff's allegations as written:

N.Y.P.D. was investigating me, under there survillace I been extords assaulted intimidated, bully, spyed, harass, difameted, they haven't done nothing about it. Under there survillace I was tokend from the place I was staying ilegaly and returnd back but with an electronic device that monitor my brain thinking (data breach) they are neglecting to protect me on purpose with unjustifiable excuse and pretending that they don't know.

(ECF No. 2 ¶ III.)

         In the section of the complaint prompting Plaintiff to explain which rights have been violated, Plaintiff asserts:

Lack of investigation, conspiracy of spying, conspiracy of exploitation, neglect to protect me, conspiracy false imprisonment, conspiracy of [fraud], conspiracy of computer theft, conspiracy of harassment, etc.

(Id. ¶ I.)

         In the relief section, Plaintiff writes: “money estimate pending, ” “refund of information, ” “information of investigation, ” and ...


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.