NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed.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



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 22, 2010 *

Decided July 23, 2010



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK
, Chief Judge

R ICHARD A. P OSNER
, Circuit Judge

D AVID F. H AMILTON
, Circuit Judge

No. 10

- 2100

S YLVESTER T HOMAS
, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v

. J.B. V AN H OLLEN
, et al

. , Defendants

- Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 10

- C

- 314 William C. Griesbach, Judge

.

Order

Sylvester Thoma s is confined at the Wisconsin Resource Center on a civil commi tment as a sexually violent pe r son. See Wis. Stat. §§ 980.01 to 980.14. In this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, he contends that the Center’s employees failed to protect him from an assault by an other patient, falsified a disciplinary r e port, and conducted a sham hearing on the charge. The district court screened Th o mas’s complaint and dismissed it on the ground that it fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Hutchinson v. Spink

, 126 F.3d 895, 899 (7th Cir. 1997).

Thomas’s complaint is short on facts and long on legal assertions, but we accept the described events as best we understand them. See Rodriguez v. Plymouth Amb u lance Service , 577 F.3d 816, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). Thomas was attacked by another p a tient who entered his private room unnoticed by staff members who were e n gaged in horseplay. Thomas tried to restrain his attacker, suffering physical and psycholog i cal injuries in the process. He received a disciplinary report for “ fighting and disruptive behavior.” A ccording to Thomas, the Center’s staff and administrators conspired to falsify that r eport. He su p ports this assertion by pointing to a mistake in the report about the fight’s

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have conclud ed that oral argument is unnece s sary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).No. 10

- 2100 Page 2

location and to a signature that he says is a forgery. Thomas appended to his co m plaint a statement from another patient who witnessed the altercation. That witness r e counts that staff members yelled loudly and repeatedly in an attempt to break up the fight, and that one employee who intervened was injured and required medical atte n tion. Thomas refused to participate in the disciplinary hearing, believing that it had been rigged and that the hearing committee planned to retaliate for grievances he had filed against two of its members. The committee r eviewed the video recording made by a security camera and found Th o mas guilty of the charges. He was demoted for two weeks to what Thomas calls “level D status.” (We do not know what this entails.)

To recover damages for injuries he suffered in the attack, Thomas would need to show that defendants displayed deliberate indifference toward a risk that he was in danger. See Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825 (1994). But the complaint does not allege that any defe n dant knew that an attack was planned, or even that Thomas was at risk. Moreover, the district court explained, the other patient’s statement attached to the complaint demonstrates that the Center’s employees reacted promptly and effe c tively to end the altercation. With respect to the disciplinary hearing, the district judge co ncluded that demotion to the mysterious “level D status” did not d e prive Thomas of a liberty interest, see Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472 (1995), and that his refusal to partic ipate in the hearing waived any entitlement to complain ab out how the hearing had been conducted.

On appeal Thomas asks us to “review the original complaint,” which we have done. His brief asserts that the district court “ignored” him and “disr e gard[ed] my rights” but does not offer any legal argument. Thomas rep eats his complaint’s alleg a tions, but repetition differs from an attempt to demonstrate that the allegations e s tablish that a legal wrong has occurred. The brief accuses the district judge of conspiring with the d efendants, but to support this serious char ge Thomas offers neither facts nor a r gument. Although we do not expect pro se litigants to have lawyers’ command of the law or f acility in presenting arguments, every litigant must do more than assert generalized, u nsupported, and shallow claims of error. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Haxhiu v. M ukasey , 519 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 2008). In particular, an appe llant’s brief must respond to the district court’s analysis and articulate a basis for disagreeing with the court’s ru ling. Anderson v. Hardman , 24 1 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Thomas does not address the di strict judge’s reasons; he insults the judge but does not undermine his concl u sions.

Thomas has become a frequent litigant. Within the last year he has filed at least four other suits arising f rom his civil commitment. See Thomas v. Schmitt , No. 10

- C

- 171 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 3, 2010) (holding that suit challenging validity of psychological evidence pr esented at commitment proceeding is foreclosed by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994)), aff’d, No. 10

- 1864 (7th Cir. June 17, 2010); Thomas v. Van Hollen , 2010 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 61313 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 28, 2010) (applying Heck to dismiss suit challen g ing civil commi t ment); Thomas v. Van Hollen , 2010 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 60483 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 28, 2010) (applyin g Heck to dismiss a challenge to civil commitment and dismissing as “unintell igible” a claim that court officials interfered with Th o mas’s access to the courts), aff’d, No. 10

- 1325 (7th Cir. Apr. 15, 2010); Thomas v. McMahon , 2009 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 102226 ( E.D. Wis. Nov. 2, 2009) (applying Heck to dismiss a suit challenging the evidence pr esented at Thomas’s commitment pr o ceeding). These descriptions show that Thomas’s suits are repetitious as well as friv o lous. He should take to heart the judicial opinions that tell him why he has lost these suits. Continuation of this frivolous litigation will lead to an order su s pending Thomas’s privilege of litigating without prepaying the $455 filing fee for each suit and requiring him to pay a fine or other penalty. Fai lure to pay that sanction will lead to an order preventing him from filing or litigating any civil suit. See Support Systems Inte r national, Inc. v. Mack , 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995). If ThomasNo. 10

- 2100 Page 3

wants to retain the right to pursue serious grievances, he must immediately desist from all frivolous litigation, and in pa r ticular he must not repeat contentions that the judiciary has already told him are u n warranted.

This appeal is dismissed as frivolous.