CUNNINGHAM v. PORT AUTHORITY AGENCY OF NEW JERSEY STATE AND NEW YORK STATE ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : BENJAMIN CUNNINGHAM, : : Plaintiff, : 22-CV-6236 (JMF) : -v- : DISMISSAL ORDER : PORT AUTHORITY AGENCY OF NEW JERSEY : STATE AND NEW YORK STATE, et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff Benjamin Cunningham, proceeding without counsel, filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 22, 2022, the District of New Jersey transferred the action to this Court on the ground that the events giving rise to Cunningham’s claims arose in this District and that the District of New Jersey did not have personal jurisdiction over one Defendant, the City of New York. On August 24, 2022, this Court entered an Order requiring Cunningham to show cause, within thirty days — that is, by September 26, 2022 —why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to the filing injunctions entered in Cunningham v. United States Marshals Serv., ECF 1:05-CV-10169, 236 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2016) (“Cunningham I”), and Cunningham v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice Agency, ECF 1:17-CV-7809, 20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2018) (“Cunningham II”). See ECF No. 115. Specifically, the Court ordered Cunningham to submit by that date “a declaration explaining why he should be permitted to litigate this action” and cautioned that, “[i]f Cunningham fails” to do so, “or if Cunningham’s declaration does not set forth good cause why the Court should permit him to proceed with this litigation, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to obtain permission to file this action.” Jd. at 3. Cunningham failed to file anything by the deadline, let alone show good cause for why he should be permitted to litigate this action despite the filing injunctions entered in Cunningham I and Cunningham IT. Accordingly, the case is hereby DISMISSED. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all motions as moot, to enter judgment in favor of Defendants, to close the case, and to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 28, 2022 New York, New York ji Umted States District Judge