United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 30, 2018*

Decided July 30, 2018

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 17-3516

VERNON ELLISON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JAMES JORGENSEN,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 17-cv-02432

Robert M. Dow, Jr.,

Judge.

O R D E R

Vernon Ellison filed suit alleging that his pension benefits have been wrongfully 

withheld by James Jorgensen, the administrator of his union’s pension fund. Ellison 

says that Jorgensen ignored evidence that he qualifies for benefits, even after a majority 

of the fund’s board of trustees voted to award him benefits. The district judge dismissed 

the original complaint on Jorgenson’s motion but also recruited counsel who specializes 

in employee-benefits law to investigate whether Ellison could plead a plausible claim in 

an amended complaint. After determining that Ellison could not, counsel withdrew. 

 

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

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

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 17-3516 Page 2

Ellison then filed an amended complaint rehashing his original allegations, using the 

district court’s standard form titled “COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF 

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.”

The district court screened the complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a 

claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court concluded that Ellison stated no claim under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983, because he did not allege that Jorgensen violated any constitutional 

right or acted under color of state law. The court also said that, like recruited counsel, it 

could not find a “basis for allowing the case to proceed under” the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. Ellison appeals and has filed a 

one-page brief that Jorgensen says does not comply with Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 28(a)(8), which requires, among other things, that an appellate brief contain a 

cogent argument with citations to authority.

We agree with Jorgensen that the appeal must be dismissed for noncompliance 

with Rule 28(a)(8). Although Ellison is proceeding pro se, he still must file an appellate

brief that contains a discernible argument. Yasinskyy v. Holder, 724 F.3d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 

2013); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Ellison does not address 

the district court’s decision, nor does he argue that he stated a plausible claim under 

§ 1983, ERISA, or any other theory of relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 680 (2009);

Brooks v. Pactiv Corp., 729 F.3d 758, 763 (7th Cir. 2013). Instead, his brief merely repeats 

his allegation that the administrator “refused to give” him his pension. He does ask this 

court to reverse because his “complaint was denied” erroneously, but we cannot 

meaningfully review an appellate argument that consists of a single bald assertion of 

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

appellate review,” we will not concoct arguments or conduct legal research for a 

litigant. Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545. This appeal is DISMISSED.