CUNNINGHAM v. PORT AUTHORITY AGENCY OF NEW JERSEY STATE AND NEW YORK STATE
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-06236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cunningham v. Port Authority Agency, Judge Furman dismissed the case because Cunningham failed to obtain permission required by earlier filing injunctions.
Benjamin Cunningham’s case was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Cunningham v. Port Authority Agency of New Jersey State and New York State, Benjamin Cunningham, who was representing himself, sued the named defendants. The case was transferred from the District of New Jersey to the Southern District of New York because the events occurred in this District and New Jersey lacked personal jurisdiction over the City of New York.
The court ordered Cunningham to explain why he should be allowed to continue despite filing injunctions entered in two earlier related proceedings. He had to submit a declaration showing good cause by September 26, 2022, but he filed nothing.
The court dismissed the case for failure to obtain permission to file it. Judge Jesse M. Furman directed the clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case, and ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- CUNNINGHAM v. PORT AUTHORITY AGENCY OF NEW JERSEY STATE AND NEW YORK STATE · No. 1:22-cv-06236
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Benjamin Cunningham, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on November 4, 2019. On July 22, 2022, that court transferred the action to the Southern District of New York because the events underlying Cunningham’s claims arose in this District and the District of New Jersey did not have personal jurisdiction over the City of New York.
Show-cause order
On August 24, 2022, the Southern District of New York ordered Cunningham to explain why the action should not be dismissed under filing injunctions entered in two earlier related proceedings. The court required him to submit a declaration explaining why he should be permitted to litigate the action and warned that the case would be dismissed if he failed to respond or failed to show good cause for proceeding despite the injunctions.
Ruling
Cunningham did not file anything by the September 26, 2022 deadline. The court therefore dismissed the case for failure to obtain permission to file the action. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. It directed the clerk to terminate all motions as moot, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, close the case, and mail Cunningham a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.