Cunningham v. Spokane County Jail Administration et al, No. 2:2020cv00356 - Document 18 (E.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 10 MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION - The court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. FILE CLOSED. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (AN, Courtroom Deputy) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cunningham v. Spokane County Jail Administration et al Case 2:20-cv-00356-SMJ ECF No. 18 Doc. 18 filed 12/14/20 PageID.138 Page 1 of 8 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 1 Dec 14, 2020 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AARON JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiff, v. SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL ADMINISTRATION and SPOKANE COUNTY JAIL OFFICIALS, No. 2:20-cv-0356-SMJ ORDER DENYING MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION Defendants. 11 By Order filed October 28, 2020, the Court directed Plaintiff Aaron Joseph 12 Cunningham, a pro se pretrial detainee currently housed at Spokane County 13 Detention Services, to show cause why the Court should grant his application to 14 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 9 at 4. In the alternative, Plaintiff could have 15 paid the $400.00 filing fee. Id. He did neither. 16 According to court records, Plaintiff has brought at least three other cases 17 that a court dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim upon 18 which relief may be granted. Id. at 2. See Cunningham v. Mrphy, [sic] et al., 2:04- 19 cv-00238-FVS, ECF No. 5 (November 29, 2004) (dismissed without prejudice for 20 failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Cunningham v. Spokane ORDER DENYING MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION – 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00356-SMJ ECF No. 18 filed 12/14/20 PageID.139 Page 2 of 8 1 County Jail et al., 2:19-cv-00301-SMJ, ECF No. 24 (February 3, 2020) (dismissed 2 with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); and 3 Cunningham v. Unknown Named Agent 1 et al., 2:19-cv-00318-SMJ, ECF No. 15 4 (January 30, 2020) (dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which 5 relief may be granted). Consequently, Plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in this 6 action without prepayment of the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless he 7 can demonstrate that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at 8 the time he filed his complaint. Id. at 2. 9 MOTION OF ARGUMENT 10 On October 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a 21-page “Motion of Argument,” ECF 11 No. 10, in which he recites various constitutional provisions, cites numerous cases, 12 and presents arguments concerning pretrial detention. Plaintiff asserts that 13 “[i]nnocent citizens are being arrested, detained, and locked in jails and [e]nslaved 14 to the rules and regulations of these penal institutions designed to punish duly 15 convicted criminals.” Id. at 2. To the extent Plaintiff is asserting that the present 16 conditions of his confinement violate due process, he has presented no factual 17 allegations supporting a viable Fourteen Amendment claim. See Gordon v. Cnty. of 18 Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018). 19 Plaintiff does not identify the relief he is seeking in this motion. The Court 20 has considered Plaintiff’s previously filed “Argument,” ECF No. 6, as well as his ORDER DENYING MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION – 2 Case 2:20-cv-00356-SMJ ECF No. 18 filed 12/14/20 PageID.140 Page 3 of 8 1 additional supplemental materials, ECF No. 8, in the Order to Show Cause, ECF 2 No. 9 at 3-4. Because Plaintiff has failed to assert any requested relief or his 3 entitlement thereto, the Court denies his “Motion of Argument,” ECF No. 10. 4 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND APPEAL 5 On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a single-page Response, ECF No. 11, 6 to the Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 9, as well as a construed Notice of 7 Interlocutory Appeal, ECF No. 13. Plaintiff asserts that he is indigent and cannot 8 afford the filing fee because any money he receives is applied to his child support 9 obligations. ECF No. 11. He does not assert that he was “under imminent danger of 10 serious physical injury” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Nor does he challenge 11 the Court’s finding that he has brought at least three other cases that were dismissed 12 as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim. 13 Instead, Plaintiff attached a letter indicating he wished to appeal two of the 14 cases the Court relied on to calculate the “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), case 15 numbers 2:19-cv-00301-SMJ and 2:19-cv-00318-SMJ, ECF No. 13-2 at 1. He also 16 asked to appeal the Order to Show Cause in this case. Id. The letter was construed 17 as a Notice of Appeal and filed separately in each of these cases, and as a Notice of 18 Interlocutory Appeal in this case, ECF No. 13. 19 The Court notes that on November 10, 2020, briefing was suspended in case 20 number 2:19-cv-00301-SMJ, and Plaintiff was granted twenty-one days to either ORDER DENYING MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION – 3 Case 2:20-cv-00356-SMJ ECF No. 18 filed 12/14/20 PageID.141 Page 4 of 8 1 voluntarily dismiss that appeal or to show cause why it should not be dismissed for 2 lack of jurisdiction, ECF No. 30 at 1-2. On December 9, 2020, the Ninth Circuit 3 Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in case number 2:19-cv-00318-SMJ for lack 4 of jurisdiction and denied all pending motions. ECF No. 28. See 28 U.S.C. § 5 2107(b); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of 6 timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); see also Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(1) (court of 7 appeal may not extend time to file a notice of appeal except as authorized in Fed. 8 R. App. P. 4). 9 In his letter/Interlocutory Notice of Appeal in this case, Plaintiff contends 10 that he was never notified that his civil suits had been dismissed for failure to state 11 a claim, and he accuses either this Court or the Spokane County Jail of hindering 12 his access to the courts. ECF No. 13-2 at 1. He asserts that he has been “working on 13 these cases for years and would not make a simple mistake.” Id. Any accusation 14 that legal mail sent to a prisoner was not delivered is concerning. Nevertheless, 15 Plaintiff has presented no facts showing he dutifully prosecuted his prior litigation. 16 The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in 2019, Plaintiff filed nine 17 civil rights cases in this district. In five of those cases, documents from the Court 18 were returned as undeliverable both before and after the Court dismissed the actions 19 in June and July 2019 for failure to comply with the filing fee and in forma pauperis 20 requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a). See Cunningham v. Doe et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION – 4 Case 2:20-cv-00356-SMJ ECF No. 18 filed 12/14/20 PageID.142 Page 5 of 8 1 2:19-cv-00028-SMJ; Cunningham v. Naphcare Medical et al., 2:19-cv-00029-SMJ; 2 Cunningham v. Walla Walla State Penitentiary, et al., 2:19-cv-00047-SMJ; 3 Cunningham v. Sheriff Superintendant of Jail (Spokane) et al., 2:19-cv-00050-SMJ; 4 and Cunningham v. Washington State et al., 2:19-cv-00072-SMJ. 5 In September and October 2019, Plaintiff filed four additional cases while 6 incarcerated at Spokane County Detention Services. He filed Motions to 7 Voluntarily Dismiss two of them, and they were dismissed on January 8, 2020 and 8 February 3, 2020, respectively. See Cunningham v. Walla Walla State Penitentiary 9 et al., 2:19-cv-00319-SMJ and Cunningham v. Department of Corrections et al., 10 2:19-cv-00360-SMJ. Copies of the dismissal orders were mailed to Plaintiff at 11 Spokane County Detention Services and were not returned as undeliverable. 12 Plaintiff makes no assertion that he failed to receive these dismissal orders. 13 During that same period, the Court issued the orders denying pending 14 motions and dismissing case numbers 2:19-cv-00301-SMJ and 2:19-cv-00318-SMJ 15 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Like the voluntary 16 dismissal orders, neither of these dismissal orders was returned as undeliverable. 17 The Court had advised Plaintiff that if he chose to amend and the Court found 18 his amended complaint was frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim, the 19 amended complaint would be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 20 1915A(b)(1) and would count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Order ORDER DENYING MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION – 5 Case 2:20-cv-00356-SMJ ECF No. 18 filed 12/14/20 PageID.143 Page 6 of 8 1 Denying Construed Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Plaintiff to 2 Amend or Voluntarily Dismiss Complaint, 2:19-cv-00301-SMJ, ECF No. 17 at 18; 3 Order Directing Plaintiff to Amend or Voluntarily Dismiss Complaint, 2:19-cv- 4 00318-SMJ, ECF No. 9 at 7. After filing his First Amended Complaints in both 5 actions, Plaintiff filed additional motions in December 2019 and January 2020. Yet, 6 from that time until November 2020, a period of more than ten months, there is no 7 record of any inquiries about the status of these two cases. 8 Plaintiff did not ask the Court about the disposition of the motions he had 9 noted for hearing in either of the two cases. Nor did he inquire whether his First 10 Amended Complaints had been served or dismissed. Plaintiff neglects to state what 11 efforts he made to prosecute these cases. Consequently, the Court finds no merit in 12 Plaintiff’s asserted diligence in the pursuit of these two cases. 13 Plaintiff has appealed the Order to Show Cause in this action. This challenged 14 order is neither final nor appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Chacon v. Babcock, 640 15 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims 16 as to all parties). Indeed, on December 9, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 17 dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See ECF No. 17. The Court now 18 resolves the in forma pauperis issue in this case. 19 // 20 // ORDER DENYING MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION – 6 Case 2:20-cv-00356-SMJ ECF No. 18 filed 12/14/20 PageID.144 Page 7 of 8 DISMISSAL 1 2 Despite Plaintiff’s present efforts to appeal actions dismissed for failure to 3 state a claim upon which relief may be granted in January and February 2020, he is 4 precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. “A prior dismissal on 5 a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject 6 of an appeal.” Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763 (2015) (concluding that 7 where prisoner filed multiple other lawsuits while appeal of dismissal of third 8 complaint was pending, the prisoner was not entitled to in forma pauperis status in 9 the successive suits). 10 Without a showing that Plaintiff was “under imminent danger of serious 11 physical injury” at the time he filed his complaint, Plaintiff has lost the privilege of 12 filing this lawsuit in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Although granted 13 the opportunity to do so, Plaintiff did not pay the $400.00 filing fee to commence 14 this action filed on October 2, 2020, ECF No. 1. As a result, this Court dismisses 15 this action without prejudice for failure to comply with the filing fee requirements 16 of 28 U.S.C. § 1914. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. Plaintiff’s “Motion of Argument,” ECF No. 10, is DENIED. 19 2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to 20 comply with the filing fee requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1914. ORDER DENYING MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION – 7 Case 2:20-cv-00356-SMJ 1 2 3. ECF No. 18 filed 12/14/20 PageID.145 Page 8 of 8 The Court certifies any appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, 4 enter judgment, provide copies to pro se Plaintiff at his last known address, and 5 CLOSE the file. 6 7 8 9 DATED this 14th day of December 2020. _________________________ SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR. United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER DENYING MOTION OF ARGUMENT AND DISMISSING ACTION – 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
