United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted February 22, 2016*

Decided February 22, 2016 

Before 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge 

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15-2852 

LAURA A. JENNINGS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:15-cv-00333-LJM-MJD 

Larry J. McKinney, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Laura Jennings filed suit against the City of Indianapolis and the Indianapolis Fire 

Department,1 alleging retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 

 

*

 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). 

1 The Indianapolis Fire Department is not a legal entity separable from the City 

and thus is not subject to suit. See Peirick v. Indiana Univ.-Purdue Univ. Indianapolis 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 15-2852 Page 2 

U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, in connection with prior employment-discrimination suits 

she filed against these defendants. In this suit, instead of asserting any adverse action 

related to her employment, she raised confusing allegations about the guardianship of 

her deceased brother, as well as taxes and insurance related to his death. The district 

court dismissed the complaint because these allegations failed to state an 

employment-discrimination claim. 

On appeal Jennings asserts that the district court erroneously dismissed her suit 

without allowing a jury to assess the City’s wrongdoing. But the court properly 

dismissed her complaint because she has not alleged that she suffered an adverse 

employment action, as is required to state a claim under Title VII. See Huri v. Office of the 

Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook Cnty., 804 F.3d 826, 833 (7th Cir. 2015); Luevano v. 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1029 (7th Cir. 2013). Nor has she specified how the 

City was involved with her brother’s guardianship such that it plausibly could be liable 

for the guardianship’s mishandling. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); 

McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 694 F.3d 873, 885 (7th Cir. 2012). To the extent Jennings 

believes that the district court denied her the opportunity to have those responsible for 

mishandling the guardianship criminally prosecuted, she is not entitled to demand 

prosecution. See, e.g., Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005); Vance v. Rumsfeld, 701 

F.3d 193, 204 (7th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

Jennings also asks us to strike documents included in the appellee’s supplemental 

appendix, including complaints and court orders from her prior suits. But we may take 

judicial notice of these documents, see Adkins v. VIM Recycling, Inc., 644 F.3d 483, 494 

(7th Cir. 2011), and thus deny her request. Jennings additionally asks that we appoint 

counsel, but we decline to do so because there is no reasonable likelihood that the 

presence of counsel would alter the outcome of the case. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 

659 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc). 

Finally, Jennings has been a vexatious litigant.2 We now order Jennings to show 

cause within 14 days why the court should not impose sanctions under Federal Rule of 

 

Athletics Dep't, 510 F.3d 681, 694 (7th Cir. 2007); City of Peru v. Lewis, 950 N.E.2d 1, 4 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2011). 

2 We already have dismissed for lack of jurisdiction six appeals that Jennings filed 

while her previous employment-discrimination and retaliation suits against the City 

were pending before the district court. See Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, Fire and EMS 

Department, No. 12-3500 (7th Cir. Mar. 21, 2013); Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, 
No. 15-2852 Page 3 

Appellate Procedure 38 for filing a frivolous appeal. Possible sanctions include 

revocation of Jennings’s IFP status, a fine, and an order under Support Sys. Int’l., Inc. v. 

Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995), barring Jennings from filing any other litigation in this 

circuit until she has paid all the fees she owes to the district courts in this circuit and to 

us. 

AFFIRMED. 

 

No. 12-1546 (7th Cir. Nov. 16, 2012); Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, No. 12-1531 (7th Cir. 

May 16, 2012); Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, No. 12-1548 (7th Cir. May 16, 2012); Jennings 

v. City of Indianapolis, Fire and EMS Department, No. 12-1554 (7th Cir. May 16, 2012); 

Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, Fire and EMS Department, No. 12-1464 (7th Cir. 

Apr. 25, 2012). The district court later dismissed at screening, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), 

another of her complaints in which she asserted largely the same allegations as in this 

suit. See Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, No. 1:14-cv-1062-WTL-TAB (S.D. Ind. Oct. 16, 

2014). We summarily affirmed. See Jennings v. City of Indianapolis, No. 14-3337 (7th Cir. 

Feb. 12, 2015). We also have either dismissed or summarily affirmed three of her other 

appeals from suits unrelated to her employment with the Indianapolis Fire Department. 

See Jennings v. Vilsack, Nos. 14-2274 & 14-2627 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2014) (summarily 

affirmed); Jennings v. Panetta, No. 12-3922 (7th Cir. May 8, 2013) (dismissed as moot); 

Jennings v. Panetta, No. 12-3522 (7th Cir. Dec. 10, 2012) (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).