The appellees were 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. Thus the appeal is submitted on the

appellant’s brief and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 17, 2008*

 Decided July 17, 2008 

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08-1646

ADRAIN BRADD, Appeal from the United States District 

Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division.

v.

No. 07 C 6101

HARRY D. LEINENWEBER, 

United States District Judge, et al., Wayne R. Andersen,

Defendants-Appellees. Judge.

O R D E R

In this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), federal inmate Adrain Bradd claims that United States

District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber and an unnamed employee of this court conspired to

deny him due process by sabotaging his collateral attack on his 1996 drug conviction. See

United States v. Hoover, 246 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir. 2001) (affirming conviction on direct appeal). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08-1646 Page 2

Bradd explains that Judge Leinenweber would not let him amend his motion under 28

U.S.C. § 2255, and that, after his motion had been denied, an employee in our clerk’s office

refused to accept a supplement to his application for a certificate of appealability. This

court, though, accepted Bradd’s application as well as at least two supplements (one on

Bradd’s initiative, and another at our request) before denying him a certificate of

appealability. See Bradd v. United States, No. 05-4671 (7th Cir. July 6, 2006), cert. denied, 127

S.Ct. 1854 (2007). Bradd petitioned for rehearing on the ground that a further supplement

to his application had not been received by this court, but we denied that petition. See

Bradd v. United States, No. 05-4671 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2006). Bradd now demands $62 million

in damages.

The district court dismissed Bradd’s complaint prior to service under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. That ruling was correct because Bradd’s complaint does not remotely suggest a

plausible right to relief and thus fails to satisfy the minimal requirements of Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8(a). See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007);

Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2007). An unfavorable

ruling does not evince improper motive by the court that issued it. See Liteky v. United

States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994); Grove Fresh Distribs. Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 299 F.3d 635, 640

(7th Cir. 2002). Bradd’s remedy from the denial of his § 2255 motion was to file a notice of

appeal and then, if he could not obtain a certificate of appealability from the district court,

apply for one from us. Bradd did file an appeal and did apply to us for a certificate, which

we denied. See Bradd, No. 05-4671 (7th Cir. July 6, 2006). He also moved for a rehearing on

the same issue advanced in his civil complaint, that his supplemental filing was not

accepted by our clerk’s office, and we denied that motion as well. See Bradd, No. 05-4671

(7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2006). Bradd’s attempt to use a Bivens action to contest these rulings is

frivolous. He incurred one “strike” in the district court for his complaint and has incurred

a second “strike” here for the continued pursuit of this frivolous litigation.

AFFIRMED.