Cunningham v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

Archibald Cunningham filed this civil action and an application to proceed without paying court fees. Because he had previously been found vexatious, his complaint was subject to a prefiling order. The court allowed the action to proceed as to some matters, granted his fee-waiver application, and screened his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court found that complaint deficient. Cunningham then filed a first amended complaint, which the court reviewed again in this order.

Under § 1915, the court must dismiss a fee-waiver case if the allegations are untrue, the action is frivolous or malicious, the complaint fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or the defendant is immune from monetary relief. The court explained that a complaint must allege facts that plausibly establish a defendant’s liability. It also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally and that the plaintiff generally must be allowed to amend unless the defects clearly cannot be fixed.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the first cause of action attempted to revive the loss of Cunningham’s property through federal civil-rights statutes. To the extent it alleged malicious prosecution, it duplicated the second cause of action. The court found the remaining allegations in the first cause of action barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

The second cause of action, for malicious prosecution, was partially viable. The court stated that the limitations period runs for two years from the favorable resolution of the criminal charges. The charges from Cunningham’s third arrest were dismissed on or around May 28, 2016, and his original complaint was filed on May 25, 2018, so that part of the claim was not time-barred. Claims based on charges dismissed before May 25, 2016—including charges dismissed on January 14, 2015—were time-barred. The court directed that any amended complaint address only the last set of charges.

The court found the third cause of action, for denial of procedural due process, and the fourth cause of action, for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights concerning an alleged wrongful 2015 arrest, barred by the two-year limitations period for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It likewise found the fifth cause of action, concerning an alleged failure to prevent a conspiracy involving Singer, Coombs, and McKay, time-barred. The sixth cause of action was also time-barred except for allegations relating to malicious prosecution. The court specifically stated that Cunningham could not properly include allegations about the loss of his property or the court-appointed receiver’s alleged unauthorized practice of law.

Disposition

The court concluded that the first amended complaint was insufficient under § 1915(e)(2). It did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it required Cunningham to file a second amended complaint by January 24, 2020, clearly stating the legal and factual basis for each claim and identifying which defendant each remaining cause of action was against. The court also directed him to number the causes of action sequentially and gave instructions about attaching relevant documents or pleading the facts without incorporating documents.

The order stated that if Cunningham did not timely file an amended complaint, or if the amended complaint did not correct all defects, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a report and recommendation that some or all of the case be dismissed. Judge Kandis Westmore also continued the case-management conference from February 11, 2020, to April 7, 2020, and set a deadline of March 31, 2020, for case-management statements.