### In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________ No. 13

- 2949 Y VONNE A VERHART , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
S HERIFF OF C OOK C OUNTY , I LLINOIS , et al

. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 10 C 7444

— Charles R. Norgle , Judge

.

____________________
S UBMITTED M AY 21, 2014

— D ECIDED M AY 28 , 2014

____________________
Before P OSNER , F LAUM , and E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Yvonne Averhart, formerly employed as a guard at the Cook County Jail, was suspended without pay in 2001 and fired in 2003. She filed her first federal lawsuit in 2001; the current suit is her fourth. She has lost them all. She filed and lost two state suits as well. The district court di smissed the current suit as barred by the earlier decisions. Averhart believes that the Sheriff’s Department, which manages the Jail, set out to pun ish her for corroborating a2 No. 13

- 2949

coworker’s accusation of sexual ha rassment by a male guard. See Smith v. Sheahan , 18 9 F.3d 529, 531 (7th Cir. 1999)

. The D epartment retaliated, she maintains , by falsely accu sing her of insubordination and oth er infractions. In 2000 she filed an administra tive charge of discrimination . Tha t charge was pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January 2001 when Aver hart learned that the D epartment was investigating her recent arrest for shoplif ting and allegations that she was fraternizing with prisoners and smuggling dru gs and other contraband into the jail. The Sheriff decided that Aver hart should be fired and in May 2001 suspended her without pay. He asked the Merit Board to approve her discharge , contending that Averhart had lied to the D epartment during its investiga t ion and engaged in inappropriate contacts with prisoners.
The Merit Board, whos e members are appointed by the S heriff with the approval of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, see 55 ILCS 5/3

- 7002, approved Averhart ’s discharge in mid

- 2003, effective as of May 2001. (In other words, the Board decided that Averhart would not receive back pay for the time between her suspension and her di scharge.) Averhart challenged the Board’s decision in state court. I n 2007, after twice remanding the matter to the Boar d for further consideration, a circuit judge upheld Averhart’s discharge. The judge later denied Averhart’s motion to v acate that ruling, and the appellate court af firmed both ru lings

. Averhart v. Cook County Sheriff’s Department , 387 I ll. App. 3d 1170 ( 20 09) (table decision), 2011 IL App (1st) 103109

- U ( Dec. 16, 2011). Averhart also sued th e Merit Board and each of its mem bers ; the circuit court dismissed that suit in 2008 for want of prosecution. See id . at ¶12 n.1.No. 13

- 2949 3
Federal litigation began even before Averhart was fired. Before receiving a right

- to

- sue letter from the EEOC , Ave rhart filed a Title VII case in the district court. She alleged that the Sheriff’s D epartment had imposed discipline for contrived or exaggerated infractions because she supported her female coworker. Then in June 2002, after receiving the EEOC’s permission but while the Mer it Board was still co nsidering her case , Averhart filed a second Title VII suit . This time she alleged that the Sheriff’s D epartment had retaliated against her “by suspending her based upon false allegations on or about May 29, 2001.” The district court consolidated the two law suits and in September 2004 granted summary judgment for the defendants . The judge ex plained that the D epartment had “offered a legitimate explanation for term inating Plaintiff, which Plaintiff has failed to rebut.” We a ffirmed

. Averhart v. Sheahan , No. 04

- 3625 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2005) (nonprecedential disposition)

. Averhart filed and dismissed a third federal suit. This is her fourth. Her c omplaint again alleges that her discharge was retaliatory, and for the first time she raises allegations of race and sex discrimination. The district court concluded that Averhart does not have a claim against the Merit Board , because it was an adjudicator y body rather than her e mploy er. With respect to the Sheriff’s Department, the court concluded that Averhart’s claims are precluded by her earl ier law suits in both federal and state court. 2012 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 133530 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 11, 2012).
Averhart’s appeal is frivolous. She does not explain how the Merit Board, as an adjudicator, could be liable under T itle VII or any other federal statute. She was never the Board’s employee. As for the claim against the Sheriff’s D e-4 No. 13

- 2949
partment: it was filed almost a de cade beyond the statute of limitations (which allows only 90 days from the right

- to

- sue letter , see 42 U.S.C. §2000e

– 5(f)(1) ) and, as the district judge observed, also is barred by the doctrine of preclusion (res judicata). That Averhart added new theories (race and sex discrimination) to this latest suit does not avoid preclusion, which requires all legal theories that concern the same events to be brought in a single suit. See, e.g., Herrmann v. Cencom Cable Associates, Inc ., 999 F .2d 223 (7th Cir. 1993); Czarniecki v. Chicago , 633 F.3d 545, 549

– 50 (7th Cir. 2011); Pa lka v. Chicago , 662 F.3d 42 8, 437

– 38 (7th Cir. 2011). Averhart has abused the judicial process by attempting to relitigate the outcome of her earlier suits. Refusal to take no for an answer, and a campaign of unending litigation, are intolerable and sanctionable. See, e.g., Homola v. McNamara , 59 F.3d 647 (7t h Cir. 1995). We give her 14 days to show cause why the court should not impose sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38. The potential sanctions include but are not limited to a financial penalty and an order revoking her pri v ilege of proceeding in forma pauper is. Any financial penalty must be paid promptly, or Averhart will be subject to a preclusion order under Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack , 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995) . See also, e.g., In re Chic ago , 500 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2007). A FFIRMED ; O RDER TO S HOW C AUSE I SSUED