Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02245/USCOURTS-ca7-16-02245-0/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 September 22, 2016*

Decided September 22, 2016

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16‐2245

KURT DOUGLAS STOVALL,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

DANIEL GROHEN, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Western Division.

No. 15 C 50223

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge.

O R D E R

Kurt Stovall sued three employees of the Illinois Department of Human Services

Division of Rehabilitation Services, alleging that they discriminated against him based

on his age, race, and disability and otherwise retaliated against him when they denied

payment for his previously approved paralegal courses and bus transportation. Stovall

also asked the district court to recruit counsel. After allowing Stovall to amend his

                                                 

* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not

participating in this appeal. We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without

oral argument because the issues have been authoritatively decided. FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(B).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

Case: 16-2245 Document: 11 Filed: 09/22/2016 Pages: 2
No. 16‐2245    Page 2

complaint three times, the district court screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2), and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The court concluded that

Stovall’s allegations did not support a claim of discrimination or raise a plausible claim

that the department retaliated against him for any protected speech. The court also

denied Stovall’s motion to recruit counsel because the facts that he alleged “do not

amount to a cognizable claim for relief” and “representation by counsel would be of no

assistance.”

Stovall appeals the dismissal, but his brief does not address the district court’s

basis for dismissing his case. Instead his brief contains an undeveloped argument that

his disability—a traumatic brain injury—required the court to recruit counsel for him.

But even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure

28(a)(8), which requires that an appellate brief contain a cogent argument and reasoning

to support it. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). In any event,

Stovall has not suggested how he has been prejudiced by the court’s decision not to

recruit counsel. See Tidwell v. Hicks, 791 F.3d 704, 709 (7th Cir. 2015); Pruitt v. Mote,

503 F.3d 647, 659 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). Stovall does not challenge the district court’s

conclusion that he failed to state a cognizable claim, and without such a claim counsel

would have made no difference in the outcome of his suit.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-2245 Document: 11 Filed: 09/22/2016 Pages: 2