# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 2, 2020 *

Decided November 4, 2020

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 20-1452

KHALED SHABANI, Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v.

CITY OF MADISON, et al.

, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 19-cv-65-bbc

Barbara B. Crabb,
J udge

.

O R D E R

This is one of several lawsuits that Kh aled Shabani brought against the City of Madison and its police officers. He asserts th at, on various occasions, officers falsely arrested him, failed to intervene to prevent an officer’s use of ex cessive force against

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts an d legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 20-1452 Page 2

him, and retaliated against him for his prior suits. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, concluding th at his false-arrest claim was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion and unsupported by any evid ence, and that his remaining claims also lacked evidentiary support. He fi led a notice of appeal, but later moved to reopen the case so that he could submit ev idence. The district co urt noted that Shabani neither substantiated his motion nor specifie d the relief he sought, so it denied the

motion.

Construing Shabani’s appellate brief liberally, see Anderson v. Hardman , 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001), we discern on ly one argument: that the district court’s allegedly erroneous denial of his motion to reopen prevented him from introducing evidence to defeat summary judgment. But we lack juri sdiction to review this denial because Shabani filed his motion to reopen after filing his notice of appeal. His failure to file a separate notice of appeal from that decision means that we cannot review it. See Sosebee

v. Astrue , 494 F.3d 583, 590 (7th Cir. 2007).

Otherwise, Shabani’s brief fails to develo p any basis for disturbing the district court’s judgment. He does not specify any e rrors in the court’s decision, nor does he engage the court’s rationale for ruling agains t him. As we have explained, “a brief must contain an argument consisting of more th an a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority.” Anderson , 241 F.3d at 545, see also Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A)

.

This appeal is frivolous. And it is ju st one among many frivolous suits that Shabani has filed in the past few years. He lost a suit in 2016 against the Madison Police Department and did not appeal. He filed two suits this year that were promptly dismissed by the district judge as frivolous, and in each the judge certified that an appeal also would be frivolous. Shabani ap pealed anyway, but this court agreed with the judge in each of those cases and denied his motions to proceed in forma pauperis

. Meanwhile Shabani has filed and lost at least ei ght similar suits in state court. It is thus evident that he is abusing the privilege of litigating in forma pauperis . We now order that

in all of his future civil suits—in district courts of this circuit, as well as in the court of appeals—he prepay the filing fees in full. In other words, his entitlement to litigate in forma pauperis is revoked because of his pers istent misuse of that option.

DISMISSED