# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 10, 2011 *

Decided March 16, 2011

By The Court:

No. 10

‐ 3560

JEFF STRONG,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM K. SUTER,

Defendant

‐ Appellee. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 10

‐ 1187

Michael M. Mihm,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Jeff Strong has filed over 20 frivolous lawsuits in the district courts of this circuit against

government agencies and employees. We have twice warned him that further frivolous

lawsuits would risk fines and possibly a litigation bar. See Strong v. Ill. Vocational Rehabilitation

Program

, No. 03

‐ 3841 (7th Cir. Apr. 1, 2004); Strong v. Baker

, No. 03

‐ 3920 (7th Cir. May 12, 2004).

He has flouted our warnings. We thus order Strong to show cause why sanctions should not

be imposed.

In this action Strong sues William Suter, the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United

States. The Court had denied Strong’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and

dismissed his petition for a writ of certiorari from our order in Strong v. Ill. Dept. of Human

Servs.

, 299 F. App’x 577 (7th Cir. Nov. 13, 2008), which summarily affirmed the dismissal of a NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* The appellee was not served with process in the district court and is not

participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have

concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Accordingly, the appeal is submitted on the

appellant’s brief and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2).No. 10

‐ 3560 Page 2

prior lawsuit. Strong attributes the denial of his IFP application to nepotism by Suter. After

the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, Strong filed a motion to vacate, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the

court denied as well.

Strong’s appeal from the denial of his motion to vacate is frivolous. Since we issued our

warnings in 2004, Strong has proceeded to file eight more frivolous complaints and three more

frivolous appeals, not counting this litigation. See Strong v. United States

, No. 2:04

‐ cv

‐ 02112

(C.D. Ill. Jun. 16, 2004); Strong v. United States

, No. 1:04

‐ cv

‐ 01188 (C.D. Ill. Jun. 30, 2004);

Strong v. Mills

, No. 2:04

‐ cv

‐ 02158 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2004); Strong v. Mills

, No. 3:04

‐ cv

‐ 00597

(S.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2004); Strong v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs.

, No. 2:06

‐ cv

‐ 02010 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 28,

2006); Strong v. Old Statehouse Hospitality

, No. 3:05

‐ cv

‐ 00337 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2006); Strong v. Ill.

Dep’t of Human Servs.

, No. 2:07

‐ cv

‐ 02242 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2008); Strong v. Ill. Dep’t of Human

Servs.

, No. 3:08

‐ cv

‐ 00017 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2008); see also Strong v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs.

, No.

06

‐ 4148 (7th Cir. Dec. 22, 2006); Strong v. Old Statehouse Hospitality

, No. 06

‐ 4320 (7th Cir. Mar.

12, 2007); Strong v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs.

, 299 Fed. App’x 577 (7th Cir. Nov. 13, 2008).

Although a district court already has fined him $500, see Strong v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs.

, No.

2:06

‐ cv

‐ 02010 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2006), Strong paid that fine and, that very day, filed another

frivolous action. See Strong v. Ill. Dep’t of Human Servs.

, No. 2:07

‐ cv

‐ 02242 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2008).

Most of Strong’s lawsuits stem from his allegation that, after he suffered a brain injury in 1988,

the Illinois Department of Human Services provided him insufficient assistance in obtaining

gainful employment. The saga must end. “Every paper filed

. . . no matter how repetitious or

frivolous, requires some portion of the institution’s limited resources.” Montgomery v. Davis

,

362 F.3d 956, 957 (7th Cir. 2004).

The judgment is AFFIRMED, and Strong is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days

why he should not be fined up to $2,000.00 for pursuing this frivolous appeal. See Fed. R. App.

P. 38. Failure to respond will result in imposition of a sanction under Rule 38.