The appel l ees were not ser ved w i th pro cess i n the dist ri ct c ourtand i s no t * parti ci pati ng i n thi s a pp eal
. Afte r exam i ni ng the appel l ant’ s br i efand the re cor d, w e hav e co nc l ude d tha t o r ala r g um en t i s unne ce ss ar y . T hus the a ppea l i s submi tt ed o n the appell ant’ s br i efand the re cor d. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United States Court of App eals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d Jul y 1 7, 20 08 * Deci ded J uly17, 20 08 B efo re D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 1646 A DR A I N BRA DD , A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct P laint if f-A ppell ant, C ou rt forthe N orthe rn D istri ct of I l l i no i s, Ea st ern Di vi si o n. v. N o. 07C 610 1 H A R R Y D . L E IN E N W E B E R, U n ite d Sta te s D ist ric t Ju d ge , etal. , W ay ne R. Ander se n, D efend a nts-A pp ellees . Judge. O R D E R I n th is action un d er Bive ns v. Six Unknown Nam e d Age nts of t heFe de r al Bure au of N arcoti cs , 40 3 U.S . 38 8 ( 1971 ) , federa l i nm ate A drai n Bradd cl ai m s that Un i ted S tat es Dist ri ct J ud ge H ar ryD. Lei nenw eberand an unnam ed em plo yee o fthi s co urt conspi re d to deny hi m due proc ess bysabot aging hi s co l l ate ra l at tacko n hi s 1 996 drug co nvi cti on. S ee U nited Sta tes v. Ho o ver, 246 F.3d 10 54 (7t h C ir. 20 01 ) (affirm in g c on vic tio n on d ire c t a p p ea l). NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 1646 Page 2

Bradd expl ai ns thatJ ud ge Lei nenw eberwould not l et hi m am end his m oti on under 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 255, and that, afterhi s m oti on had bee n denie d, an em plo yee i n ourcl er k’ s o ffi ce re fu se d to ac c ep t a su p p lem en t t o h is a p p lica tio nfor a ce rt ifica te of ap p ea lab ility
. T h is cour t, tho ugh, acc epted Bradd’s appli cati on a s wel l as atl eas t tw o supp l em ents ( one on Bradd ’ s ini ti ati ve, and another at our re quest) befor e denyi ng hi m a cer ti fi cate o f appeal abi l i ty. S ee B rad d v . U nited Sta tes , N o. 05 -46 71 (7t h C ir. Ju ly 6 , 200 6), cert. denied , 12 7 S . Ct. 1 85 4 ( 20 07 ) . Br add pet i ti o ne d f o r r eh ea r i ngo n the g r o und tha t a fur th ers uppl ement to hi s a pp l i cati on had notbee n re cei ved by thi s co urt, but w e deni ed that peti ti on. S ee B rad d v . U nited Sta tes , N o. 05
- 4671 ( 7th Ci r. A ug. 29 , 20 06) . Bra dd now dem ands $62 m i l l i on i n dam age s. Th e di s t r i c tc o ur tdi s mi s s e d B r a dd’ s c o mpl a i ntp r i o r t o s e r v i c e u nd e r 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 915A. That r uling was cor re ct b ecause Bradd’s com pla i nt does notr em ote l y s ugges t a pla usibl e r i ght t o re l i efand thus f ai l s t o sat i sfy the m i ni m alr equi re m ents ofFe deralRule o f Civi l Pro cedure 8( a) . S ee Bell A tl antic C orp. v. Tw om bly, 127 S. C t. 1955 , 1964-65 (2007); Ki l l i n gs wor t h v. HSBC Ba n k Nev ad a, N. A. , 507F.3d 61 4, 61 8 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). A n u n fav or ab le rul i ng does notev i nce i m properm oti ve by the c ourtthati ssued i t. S ee Liteky v . U nited Sta tes , 510 U .S. 54 0, 55 4 (1 99 4); Grov eFre s h Dis t r i b s . Inc . v. John Lab at t, Lt d. , 29 9 F . 3d 635, 640 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) . Bra dd ’ s r em edy fro m the denia l o fhi s § 22 55 m oti on was to fi l e a not i ce o f appeal and then, i fhe c oul d not obtain a c er ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty f ro m the dist ri ct c ourt, apply f oro ne fro m us. Bra dd di d fi l e a n appeal and did appl y t o us f ora cer ti fi cate , wh i ch w e deni ed. S ee Br add, N o. 05
- 4671 ( 7th Ci r. J uly6, 20 06) . He al so m ove d fo r a r ehear i ng o n the s am e i ssue advanced in hi s ci vi l co m pla i nt, thathi s s up ple m entalfi l i ng was not accepte d by o ur cl er k’ s o ffi ce, and w e deni ed that m oti on a s wel l
. S ee Brad d, N o. 05
- 4671 ( 7th Ci r. A ug. 29 , 20 06) . Bra dd ’ s a tte m pt to use a Bive ns ac tio n to co n te st th es e ru lin gs is f ri vol ous. He i ncurr ed one “st ri ke” i n the dist ri ct c ourtf orhi s co m pla i nt and has i ncurr ed a se co nd “ st r i k e” he r e f o r the c o nt i nue d pur su i t o fthi s f r i vo l o us l i ti g at i o n. A FFI RMED .