Blake (ID 96323) v. JPay et al

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Action (ECF No. 93 ) is denied. The parties shall comply with the deadlines for informal dispute resolution, and arbitration, if necessary. Status Conference set for 4/4/2023 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer by Zoom. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gwynne E. Birzer on 1/26/2023. Mailed to pro se party Shaidon Blake by regular mail. (mam)

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 98 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

SHAIDON BLAKE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JPAY, INC., et al.,
Defendants,

Case No. 18-3146-EFM-GEB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Action (ECF
No. 93). JPay, Inc. (“JPay”) previously moved to compel the parties to engage in arbitration
and to stay proceedings in this Court. On April 26, 2022, District Judge Eric F. Melgren
granted JPay’s motion. Plaintiff initially opposed arbitration, however, where the Court
ordered it and JPay had not initiated arbitration proceedings, Plaintiff brought the instant
motion to compel action. On January 26, 2023, the Court heard oral argument via Zoom.
Plaintiff appeared pro se, via videoconference. Defendant JPay appeared through counsel,
Whitney L. Casement and Jonathan A. Heller. After careful consideration of all briefing
and hearing arguments from counsel and parties, the Court orally DENIED Plaintiff’s
motion. This Order memorializes the Court’s rulings from the hearing on Plaintiff’s
motion.

1

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 98 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 8

I.

Procedural and Factual Background1
Plaintiff, an inmate at the El Dorado Correctional Facility, attempted to obtain the

cover image of his book, “Doggystyle Confessions of a Serial Cheater” through Defendant
JPay. JPay provides communications, money transfer, video visitation and other services
to inmates housed in the Kansas Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) facilities. When his
attempt failed because the image was censored, this civil rights action against JPay and two
KDOC officials followed. JPay did not make an appearance in this matter until fairly
recently.2 After responding to an Order to Show Cause, JPay was ordered to respond to
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint no later than March 4, 2022. JPay timely responded
filing a Motion to Compel Arbitration, and/or Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration as
Against or Related to JPay, Inc.3 JPay’s motion was granted on April 26, 2022.4
The KDOC officials, Joe Norwood and Paul Snyder, were dismissed from this
matter on March 21, 2022.5 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal regarding
dismissal of the KDOC officials. 6 An appeal was docketed with the United States Court of

1

Unless otherwise indicated, the information recited in this section is taken from the Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 43). This background information should not be construed as
judicial findings or factual determinations.
2
See ECF Nos. 69 and 75 for discussion on the history of JPay’s appearance in this case.
3
ECF No. 77.
4
ECF No. 87.
5
ECF No. 79
6
ECF No. 88.
2

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 98 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 8

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 20227 but was ultimately dismissed for lack of
prosecution on August 2, 2022.8
When no arbitration had been commenced, on November 30, 2022 Plaintiff filed
the instant motion asking the Court to compel JPay to initiate the ordered arbitration
arguing the delay in commencing arbitration has prevented him from appealing the ruling
dismissing the KDOC officials. JPay responded arguing the terms and conditions of the
arbitration agreement with Plaintiff neither require JPay to initiate the arbitration nor pay
the initial arbitration fees.
II.

Plaintiffs’ Motion Compel Action (ECF No. 93)
Judge Melgren, in his Memorandum and Order granting JPay’s Motion to Compel

Arbitration, analyzed portions of Section 9 of the Terms of Service and Warranty Policy
between inmates who use JPay’s services and JPay, entitled “Dispute Resolution &
Arbitration Agreement” (“Agreement”). Judge Melgren found an enforceable agreement
existed between Plaintiff and JPay, the Agreement covered the dispute at issue in this case,
and stayed the litigation. The question to be answered in the current motion is whether the
language of the Agreement requires JPay to initiate the arbitration proceedings. For the
reasons discussed below, the Court finds it does not.

7
8

ECF No. 90.
ECF No. 92.
3

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 98 Filed 01/26/23 Page 4 of 8

Plaintiff proceeds in this matter pro se, therefore the Court construes his filings
liberally and holds them to a less stringent standard.9 However, the Court can neither
assume the role of advocate for a pro se litigant10 nor excuse him from “follow[ing] the
same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”11
A.

Discussion

Plaintiff argues JPay’s failure to initiate arbitration proceedings after moving to
compel arbitration prevents him from appealing the Court’s summary judgment rulings
which dismissed KDOC officials from this action.12 The Federal Arbitration Act at 9
U.S.C. § 4 provides “[a] party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another
to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district
court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil
action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between
the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for
in such agreement.” JPay denies it has failed, neglected, or refused to participate in
arbitration and thus Plaintiff has not been aggrieved requiring an order under 9 U.S.C. § 4.
The Court is inclined to agree.
JPay’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, and/or stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration
as Against or Related to JPay, Inc. sought to enforce the terms of the parties’ Agreement

9

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
10
Id.
11
Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted).
12
The Court notes Plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal to the Tenth Circuit which was
dismissed for failure to prosecute after the Tenth Circuit identified a potential jurisdictional
defect and Plaintiff failed to respond. See ECF No. 92.
4

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 98 Filed 01/26/23 Page 5 of 8

which as the District Judge has determined requires the use of arbitration to resolve the
dispute at issue. Nowhere in its motion did JPay seek leave to initiate arbitration
proceedings against Plaintiff. Likewise, nowhere in Judge Melgren’s Memorandum and
Order granting JPay’s motion, is JPay ordered to initiate arbitration proceedings against
Plaintiff.
“It is only where the arbitration may not proceed under the provisions of the contract
without a court order that the other party is really aggrieved.”13 Paragraph (b) of the parties’
Agreement addresses the informal dispute resolution which is a condition precedent
“before either party initiates any arbitration…against the other party.”14 And paragraph (f)
of the Agreement addresses the procedure for arbitrating disputes where the amount in
dispute is “equal to or greater than $50,000”15 as is the case here. Paragraph (f) directs that
“either party may initiate arbitration, which shall be conducted by the American
Arbitration Association….”16 Under Florida law,17 when interpreting a contract “a court
should give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of its terms.”18 “Words should be
given their natural meaning or the meaning most commonly understood in relation to the
subject matter and circumstances, and reasonable construction is preferred to one that is

13

Standard Magnesium Corp. v. Fuchs, 251 F.2d 455, 458 (10th Cir. 1957).
14
ECF No. 77-1 at 9.
15
Id. at 10.
16
Id. (emphasis added.).
17
Section 9(i) of the agreement addresses governing law. The Agreement is to be “governed by,
and interpreted, construed, and enforced in accordance with the United States Federal Arbitration
Act….” “To the extent state law applies…Florida law will govern.”
18
Golf Scoring Systems Unlimited, Inc. v. Remedio, 877 So.2d 827,829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing
Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 132 (Fla. 2000)).
5

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 98 Filed 01/26/23 Page 6 of 8

unreasonable.”19 Thus, under the terms of the Agreement, giving effect to the plain and
ordinary meaning of the words “either party may initiate arbitration,” Plaintiff may initiate
arbitration. If Plaintiff is permitted to initiate arbitration, then arbitration may proceed
under the provisions of the contract without a court order thus he is not aggrieved by JPay’s
delay in initiating arbitration as he claims.
Even if the Court were to find Plaintiff had been aggrieved and a court order was
necessary, 9 U.S.C. § 4 directs a court after hearing the parties and upon being “satisfied
that the making of the agreement for arbitration” is not an issue “the court shall make an
order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.” And as discussed above, the terms of the Agreement allow either party to
initiate arbitration. The Court agrees with JPay the parties’ Agreement does not require
JPay to initiate arbitration.
Ultimately, the claims at issue are Plaintiff’s to pursue. He brought his claims
against JPay and the KDOC officials in this Court. The District Judge has determined an
enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists between Plaintiff and JPay and the Agreement
covers the dispute at issue in this case.20 If Plaintiff wishes to further pursue his claims
against JPay he should do so in accordance with the parties’ Agreement.
Although the Court does not intend to interpret the parties’ Agreement for Plaintiff,
it does intend to set deadlines which requires some discussion of the Agreement. Plaintiff
shall commence Informal Dispute Resolution pursuant to § 9(b) of the Agreement no later

19

Id. (quoting Thompson v. C.H.B., Inc., 454 Fo.2d 55, 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)).
20
ECF No. 87 at 9.
6

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 98 Filed 01/26/23 Page 7 of 8

than ten days after the entry of this Order. JPay shall respond within the thirty days
provided in that section for response and certify its response with this Court advising the
Court whether the parties have resolved Plaintiff’s claims. If the claims are not resolved
through the informal dispute resolution process, based upon Plaintiff’s assertions regarding
the amount of the dispute, Plaintiff should initiate arbitration to be “conducted by the
American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) before one (1) arbitrator and pursuant to its
Commercial Arbitration Rules”21 no later than 120 days after JPay files its certification of
response with the Court.
A Status Conference is set for April 4, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom to discuss the
status of the informal resolution process and steps towards the commencement of
arbitration. However, based upon the deadlines set forth above, it is not the Court’s
expectation arbitration with the American Arbitration Association will have been initiated
prior to the Status Conference.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel Action (ECF No. 93) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the parties shall comply with the deadlines for
informal dispute resolution, and arbitration, if necessary, as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Status Conference is set in this matter for April 4,
2023 at 10:00 a.m. via Zoom.

21

ECF No. 77-1 at 10.
7

Case 5:18-cv-03146-EFM-GEB Document 98 Filed 01/26/23 Page 8 of 8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of January, 2023.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer
GWYNNE E. BIRZER
U.S. Magistrate Judge

8