UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ERNEST CALVINO JR., Plaintiff, 20-CV-659 (CM) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL ROBERT A. SANCHEZ SANTANA, Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. By order dated January 27, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. The Court dismisses the complaint for the reasons set forth below. STANDARD OF REVIEW The 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.

(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon,

(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,

(2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

(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,

(1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007); see also Denton v. Hernandez,

(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.,

(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 omitted).

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Ernest Calvino makes the following allegations: At the beginning, I did not know he was monitoring me electroni[cal]ly. He knows m[y] intellectual[l] property. He’s sup[p]ose[d] to provide information, investigative information for court purp[o]se[s] civil hearing and criminal hearing. I have not made contact with the plain[ti]ff. He [is] sup[posed] to have my propert[ies], bus[i]nesses, asset[s], money. I am requesting my valuables in person in a respectful[l] and normal way. (ECF 2, at 5.) DISCUSSION Even when read with the “special solicitude” due pro se pleadings, Triestman,

, Plaintiff’s claims rise to the level of the irrational, and there is no legal theory on which he can rely. See Denton,

; Livingston,

. District 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,

(2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo,

(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

(e)(2)(B)(i). This action is one of 82 actions that Plaintiff has filed in forma pauperis in recent months. Because of Plaintiff’s abuse of the privilege of proceeding without prepaying the filing fee, the Court directed Plaintiff in Calvino v. L., ECF 1:19-CV-11958 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2020), to show cause why he should not be barred from filing new actions IFP without first obtaining leave of court. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as frivolous under

(e)(2)(B)(). The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 27, 2020 , New York, New York hie. Iu Wik Chief United States District Judge