Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02009/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02009-0/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 December 22, 2015*

Decided December 22, 2015

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐2009

JUDY ANN POWELL,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

WEBSTER SMITH,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of

Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:15‐cv‐00533‐WTL‐DML

William T. Lawrence,

Judge.

O R D E R

Judy Powell sued Webster Smith, the director of the Indianapolis District Office of

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, referring obliquely to the EEOC,

executive orders, the United States Constitution, and the International Court of Justice.

Powell attached to the complaint medical records, an op‐ed written by former President

Jimmy Carter, correspondence with the EEOC, and other documents. The district court

could not discern a plausible federal claim and dismissed the complaint as frivolous and

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-2009 Document: 27 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pages: 2
No. 15‐2009    Page 2

for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court invited Powell to clarify

her allegations, but her response failed to cure the identified deficiencies, so the court

entered judgment against her.

Powell’s brief on appeal does not mention the district court’s dismissal of her

complaint, much less offer any coherent argument regarding that dismissal. The appeal

is therefore dismissed for failing to raise any cognizable argument. See FED. R. APP.

P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001).

Two brief notes. First, the district court determined that Powell’s suit was

frivolous, so it should have certified that Powell’s appeal was taken in bad faith and

revoked the order authorizing Powell to proceed IFP on appeal. See Moran v. Sondalle,

218 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 2000); Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026–27 (7th Cir. 2000).

Second, Powell has previously filed frivolous lawsuits. See Powell v. City,

No. 1:14‐cv‐00810‐RLY‐DML (S.D. Ind. May 23, 2014), summarily aff’d, No. 14‐2363

(7th Cir. 2014); Powell v. Greystone Corp. Realty, No. 1:12‐cv‐01070‐WTL‐DKL (S.D. Ind.

June 19, 2013); Powell v. State of Indiana, No. 1:12‐cv‐01498‐TWP‐DKL (S.D. Ind. Jan. 24,

2013), appeal dismissed, No. 13‐1429 (7th Cir. 2013); Powell v. Travelers Indem. Co.,

No. 1:12‐cv‐00452‐TWP‐DML (S.D. Ind. June 5, 2012), summarily aff’d, No. 12‐2488

(7th Cir. 2012). If Powell continues to file frivolous lawsuits, she risks monetary fines and

a possible bar forbidding her from filing any further litigation in any federal court within

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

DISMISSED.

Case: 15-2009 Document: 27 Filed: 12/22/2015 Pages: 2