Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-19-02567/USCOURTS-ca7-19-02567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted March 26, 2020*

Decided March 27, 2020 

Before 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 19-2567 

JARED STUBBLEFIELD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF 

COOK COUNTY, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

 Appeal from the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of Illinois, Eastern Division. 

No. 19 C 2715 

Matthew F. Kennelly, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Jared Stubblefield sued the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the City of 

Chicago, and the State of Illinois for preventing him from obtaining “attorney’s fees” for 

successfully defending himself against traffic citations in state court. (He later named 

the police officer who issued the traffic citations as a defendant.) He alleged that the 

state traffic court violated his right of equal protection by not allowing him to seek 

*

 The appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this 

appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that 

this case is appropriate for summary disposition. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

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

Case: 19-2567 Document: 18 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pages: 2
No. 19-2567 Page 2 

$12 million in compensation for his self-representation. After twice dismissing 

Stubblefield’s complaints with leave to amend, the district court dismissed his second 

amended complaint with prejudice as legally frivolous. We affirm the judgment. 

On appeal, Stubblefield does not make any legal argument for disturbing the 

district court’s judgment. But even if we generously construe his pro se appellate brief 

as arguing that he stated a nonfrivolous claim, he must lose. In his second amended 

complaint Stubblefield invoked Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of 

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and on appeal he invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On the facts 

alleged, he could not state a plausible claim under either theory. Stubblefield has not 

sued any individual federal defendants, so Bivens does not apply. See 403 U.S. at 395; 

Small v. Chao, 398 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 2005). And § 1983 establishes a cause of action 

only for the deprivation of the “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the 

Constitution and laws” of the United States. Stubblefield, however, has no right under 

the Constitution or other federal law to receive attorney’s fees (it is unclear from whom) 

for defeating his traffic tickets as a pro se litigant. Simply invoking the phraseology of 

the Constitution in connection with these alleged facts is insufficient to state a claim. 

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to state a claim pleading must do more 

than offer “labels and conclusions” or conclusory legal assertions); Avila v. Pappas, 

591 F.3d 552, 553 (7th Cir. 2010) (simply uttering the word “Constitution” is insufficient 

even to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction). The district court was correct to 

dismiss this case as lacking in merit. 

AFFIRMED 

Case: 19-2567 Document: 18 Filed: 03/27/2020 Pages: 2