Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02112/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02112-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 12, 2016*

Decided December 13, 2016

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐2112

JOHN D. MINARD,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

WAL‐MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District   

of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 14 C 8168

Virginia M. Kendall,   

Judge.

O R D E R

John Minard appeals the dismissal of his personal‐injury complaint, brought

under diversity jurisdiction, for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

8(a)(2) and 10(b) and with particular directives of the district court. Because Minard

does not develop an argument challenging any of the district court’s decisions, we

dismiss this appeal.

                                                 

* We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without oral argument because

the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral

argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 16-2112 Document: 35 Filed: 12/13/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16‐2112    Page 2

Minard first brought a civil‐rights complaint against Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc.,

alleging constitutional violations after he was struck by a car in a Wal‐Mart parking lot.

The district court screened Minard’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and dismissed it

for failing to allege a constitutional violation against a state actor. Minard then amended

his complaint without leave of the court, this time alleging diversity jurisdiction and

seeking to hold Wal‐Mart liable for his injuries from the accident. In a prior suit, Minard

had recovered damages from the car’s driver, but his amended complaint sought

additional damages from Wal‐Mart due to the layout of its parking lot. The court

dismissed Minard’s amended complaint without prejudice under Rule 8(a)(2), and then

even recruited three attorneys to help him file a complaint that comported with the

rules of civil procedure. Minard, however, failed to follow discovery rules, did not

respond to either of two motions to dismiss filed by Wal‐Mart, and repeatedly filed

motions that did not adhere to federal court rules. The court eventually granted Wal‐

Mart’s motion to dismiss, explaining that the complaint was “unintelligible”; “vague,

confusing, and conclusory”; and failed to provide Wal‐Mart sufficient notice of his

claims.   

On appeal Minard repeats his conclusory assertion that Wal‐Mart acted

negligently (i.e., “[e]vidence submitted supports the facts”), but he does not identify

any disagreement with the district court’s reasons for dismissing his suit. Although we

construe pro se briefs liberally, arguments must be developed and supported to be

preserved. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545

(7th Cir. 2001).

DISMISSED.

Case: 16-2112 Document: 35 Filed: 12/13/2016 Pages: 2