Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-03388/USCOURTS-ca7-16-03388-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted February 13, 2017*

Decided February 15, 2017 

Before 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 16-3388 

DORIS QUEEN LAVENDER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UIC COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 16 CV 1996 

John W. Darrah, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Doris Queen Lavender sued the UIC College of Dentistry and six dentists for 

violating her civil rights in fantastical ways, among them allegedly placing a miniature 

bomb in one of her teeth, electrocuting her “execution style,” and wiretapping her. 

When she applied to proceed in forma pauperis in the district court, the court dismissed 

 

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because it would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). The defendants are not 

participating in this appeal. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

Case: 16-3388 Document: 12 Filed: 02/15/2017 Pages: 2
No. 16-3388 Page 2 

the lawsuit because her allegations were too speculative to state a claim on which relief 

could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

On appeal Lavender repeats the same fantastical allegations but does not provide 

a reasoned basis for disturbing the district court’s conclusion that her allegations did 

not state a claim. She therefore has not complied with Rule 28(a)(8) of the Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, which requires that an appellate brief contain an argument and 

reasoning to support it, and which even pro se litigants must follow. See Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327–28 (1989); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 

2001). 

DISMISSED. 

Case: 16-3388 Document: 12 Filed: 02/15/2017 Pages: 2