United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 8, 2017*

Decided March 8, 2017

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 16-4119

BRANDON J. COLLINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 16-CV-1298-JPS

J.P. Stadtmueller,

Judge.

O R D E R

Brandon Collins, a Wisconsin prisoner, filed a rambling and largely incoherent 

complaint challenging the state’s jurisdiction to prosecute and incarcerate him. Collins 

claims to be “a trust,” insists that the “corporate constitution of the United States, and 

the State of Wisconsin does not operate on” him, and that all judges and attorneys 

conspire to hide the fact that the federal government was dissolved in a 1933 “National 

Bankruptcy.” Collins named as defendant the State of Wisconsin “doing business as” 

the prosecutor from his criminal case; he wants his convictions for sexual assault of a 

 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is 

frivolous. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 16-4119 Page 2

child and bail jumping set aside. The district court screened Collins’s complaint, see 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed it on several grounds, including that a criminal 

conviction cannot be challenged through a civil-rights suit. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 

411 U.S. 475 (1973).

On appeal Collins does not challenge the district court’s conclusions or present a 

legal argument of any kind. Instead, he repeats his nonsensical assertions and contends 

that the “defendant should be held liable to answer” because the district court “should 

have proper jurisdiction unless the law is mistaken,” in which “case this claim should 

have been transferred to the Supreme Court for further rulings.” We construe pro se

filings liberally, Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001), but we cannot 

find in Collins’s appellate brief any challenge to the district court’s decision or any 

discussion of its analysis. Even pro se litigants must comply with Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8), which requires that an appellate brief contain a cogent 

argument and reasons supporting it, with citations to authority and relevant parts of the 

record. Although we “are generally disposed toward providing a litigant the benefit of 

appellate review,” Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545, we will not craft arguments or conduct 

legal research on behalf of a litigant. Because Collins has not presented an argument, we 

are left with nothing to review.

Collins paid all fees in both the district court and on appeal, but he still incurred

strikes for his complaint and this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We warn Collins that 

another strike will result in his being barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in the 

future. Further pursuit of frivolous litigation may also subject him to fines and an order

under Support Systems Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995), barring him 

from filing further legal papers in any federal court within this circuit except for 

criminal cases or applications for writs of habeas corpus.

DISMISSED.