Aaron Joseph Cunningham v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AARON JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 23-35262
D.C. No. 4:22-cv-05165-MKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Mary K. Dimke, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Federal pretrial detainee Aaron Joseph Cunningham appeals from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition
challenging his pretrial detention and seeking $ 100,000,000 in gold bullion. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see McNeely v.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-35262
Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2003) and we affirm.
Cunningham’s claim that pretrial detention categorically violates
defendants’ due process rights fails. See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739,
742, 751-55 (1987). Even assuming Cunningham can assert individualized
challenges to his pretrial detention in a § 2241 petition—an issue we need not and
do not decide—he has not shown any constitutional violations here.1
This disposition is without prejudice to any motion Cunningham’s counsel
may wish to file in his ongoing criminal proceedings in the district court
challenging his pretrial detention.
We do not consider Cunningham’s remaining arguments, which he raised for
the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.
2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
1 Even if Cunningham could establish that his pretrial detention violated his
constitutional rights, he cannot seek damages on that basis. See Nelson v.
Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (“damages are not an available habeas
remedy”).

-- 2 of 2 --