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
- 1
In Cunningham v. Port Authority, Judge Furman denied the plaintiff’s submissions as moot or frivolous and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Benjamin Cunningham’s post-dismissal submissions and any attempt to appeal this order without paying the required appeal fees were affected. The defendants’ positions are not discussed in this order.
What happened
In Cunningham v. Port Authority Agency of New Jersey State and New York State, pro se plaintiff Benjamin Cunningham made several submissions to the court. The opinion identifies those filings as ECF Nos. 120–127 but does not describe their specific requests.
The court said that, to the extent the submissions could be understood and requested relief, the requests were denied because they were moot after the earlier dismissal of the case and/or frivolous.
Judge Furman also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Cunningham permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The clerk was directed to mail Cunningham a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- CUNNINGHAM v. PORT AUTHORITY AGENCY OF NEW JERSEY STATE AND NEW YORK STATE · No. 1:22-cv-06236
- Jesse Furman
- May 12, 2023
Background
Benjamin Cunningham, who was representing himself, made multiple submissions to the court, identified as ECF Nos. 120–127. The order does not explain the contents of those submissions. It states that the case had already been dismissed in an earlier order or orders identified as ECF Nos. 116–117.
Ruling on the Submissions
The court denied the requests in the submissions to the extent they were understandable and sought relief. It described the requests as moot because of the earlier dismissal of the case and/or frivolous. The opinion does not specify which requests were denied for which reason.
Appeal-Fee Determination and Other Direction
Judge Jesse M. Furman certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal. It also directed the clerk to mail Cunningham a copy of the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.