CUNNINGHAM v. SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES &
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-02542
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cunningham v. Port Authority, Chief Judge Swain ordered Benjamin Cunningham to explain why he should proceed despite a prior filing injunction.
Benjamin Cunningham, whose ability to continue litigating the action was conditioned on responding to the court’s order and addressing the prior filing injunction; any pending motions could be denied as moot if the action were later dismissed.
What happened
Benjamin Cunningham v. Port Authority of NY/NJ Agency concerns a lawsuit alleging that Port Authority officers beat, detained, arrested, and transported Cunningham for psychiatric treatment without legal cause or consent. The case had first been filed in New Jersey and was later transferred to this court.
The court noted that an earlier order barred Cunningham from filing additional lawsuits or papers without the court’s permission. Because Cunningham had not sought permission, the court ordered him to explain in a declaration why he should be allowed to continue this case. The order did not dismiss the case at this stage.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain said that if Cunningham did not comply or did not adequately explain the filing, the court would dismiss the action without prejudice and deny pending motions as moot. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- CUNNINGHAM v. SILVERSTEIN PROPERTIES & · No. 1:23-cv-02542
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 21, 2023
Background
Benjamin Cunningham filed this action without a lawyer. He originally filed it in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on October 29, 2019, and paid the filing fees while the case was pending there. The District of New Jersey transferred the action to the Southern District of New York on February 28, 2023. Cunningham had not asked the Southern District of New York for permission to litigate the case.
The amended complaint, as described in the transfer order, alleged that Port Authority of New York and New Jersey officers unlawfully beat and detained Cunningham inside the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan on April 5, 2019. It further alleged that officers transported him to the psychiatric division of Mount Sinai West without legal cause or his consent. The complaint also alleged that, after Cunningham went to 4 World Trade Center on May 9, 2019, to file a complaint with the Port Authority’s legal department, Port Authority officers beat and arrested him. The complaint stated that New York Police Department officers and emergency services personnel transported him to New York Presbyterian Hospital, after which he was taken to a Manhattan Department of Correction facility.
Prior filing injunction
In an earlier related proceeding, the court barred Cunningham from filing additional papers or lawsuits without the court’s permission. A later order imposed another filing injunction and confirmed that the earlier restriction remained in effect. The court also noted that it had dismissed another action after Cunningham failed to respond to a similar order to show cause, and that the Court of Appeals later denied him permission to appeal because of a separate leave-to-file restriction.
Court’s order
Because Cunningham was representing himself and because of the allegations in the amended complaint, the court ordered him to show cause by declaration within 30 days why he should be permitted to litigate this action. The court said that Cunningham appeared to have tried to avoid the earlier filing injunction by first filing the action in New Jersey.
The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It stated that, if Cunningham failed to comply with the order within the allowed time and failed to explain that failure, the court would issue an order and judgment dismissing the action without prejudice under the earlier filing injunction. It also stated that pending motions would then be denied as moot.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.