Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02017/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02017-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 26, 2015*

Decided June 30, 2015

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

Nos. 14‐2017 & 14‐2695

ROBERT HOLLAND,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

LAKE COUNTY MUNICIPAL

GOVERNMENT, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

Hammond Division.  

No. 2:13cv179

Theresa L. Springmann,

Judge.

O R D E R

This appeal arises from a lawsuit that Robert Holland, an attorney suspended

from practice since 2009, brought in the Northern District of Indiana under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.  

                                                 

* Appellant Robert Holland filed two notices of appeal after the judgment became

final. We dismiss appeal no. 14‐2695 as duplicative. The defendants were not served

with process in the district court and are not participating on appeal. After examining

the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that this case is appropriate for

summary disposition. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 14-2017 Document: 28 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pages: 2
Nos. 14‐2017 & 14‐2695     Page 2

§§ 1961–1968. The suit alleges that since 1998 an array of public and private actors have

conspired “to put him out of business.” The defendants, he says, cost him his job with

the Lake County, Indiana, prosecutor’s office, got him banned from the Lake County

government building, leveled false allegations that prompted the suspension of his law

license, unlawfully seized two real properties, and caused him to be falsely arrested and

imprisoned. This suit, though, is actually Holland’s fifth raising similar allegations.

See Holland v. CEO Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 2:14cv5  (N.D. Ind. 2014), aff’d,

No. 14‐3447 (7th Cir. Feb. 9, 2015); Holland v. City of Gary, No. 2:10‐CV‐454‐PRC (N.D.

Ind. 2013), aff’d, 533 F. App’x 661 (7th Cir. 2013); Holland v. City of Gary, No. 2:12‐CV‐62‐

TS (N.D. Ind. 2012), aff’d, 503 F. App’x 476 (7th Cir. 2013); Holland v. Lake County Mun.

Gov’t, No. 2:13‐CV‐180 PS (N.D. Ind. 2013). The district court initially dismissed the

complaint—totaling 467 pages—as inconsistent with the “short and plain statement”

requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). The district court then screened

Holland’s amended complaint and dismissed it, this time with prejudice. That

complaint, the court principally reasoned, fails to state a plausible claim for relief under

§ 1983 or RICO. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In fact, the court added, Holland’s

allegations are “fantastic” and “delusional,” and thus frivolous. See id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).  

Holland protests the dismissal, insisting that his claims are plausible because, by

his count, “more than 50 Lake County public officials have been convicted of public

corruption” in the last decade. But Holland’s reliance on the past performance of

unidentified public officials to support his claim of personal abuse by other public

officials amounts to nothing more than speculation, which is insufficient to state a

plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 556–57 (2007); Runnion ex. rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater

Chicago, 786 F.3d 510, 526 (7th Cir. 2015).

This appeal is frivolous. The district court has twice warned Holland that he

risks sanctions for continuing to file frivolous submissions. We add to the district

court’s warnings our own admonishment that future frivolous appeals also may result

in sanctions. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).   

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment in appeal no. 14‐2017 and DISMISS

appeal no. 14‐2695.

Case: 14-2017 Document: 28 Filed: 06/30/2015 Pages: 2