United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 22, 2015*

Decided July 24, 2015

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐1044                Appeal from the   

              United States District Court  

MIYKAEL MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

ANJANETTE JESSE, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 13 C 8227

Gary Feinerman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Miykael Muhammad appeals the grant of summary judgment against him in this

suit asserting constitutional violations in connection with the denial of a passport

because of unpaid child support. We affirm.

Muhammad, a self‐described “ecclesiastical minister,” owes more than $13,000 in

child support in Illinois. When a person is more than $2,500 in arrears in child support,

states are required to notify the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. See

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.

See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 15‐1044    Page 2

42 U.S.C. § 654(31). That information then must be transmitted to the U.S. Department of

State, see id. § 652(k)(1), which must deny a passport to anyone who has been reported

for such an arrearage, see id. § 652(k)(2); 22 C.F.R. § 51.60(a)(2). The Illinois Department

of Healthcare and Family Services duly reported Muhammad for his substantial

arrearage. His passport application was then denied, which he says prevented him from

traveling to “the East” to spread “the message of God Allah Jahovah.”   

Muhammad sued the Illinois agency, two of its employees, and the former

governor of Illinois, demanding that his passport be issued and contending that the

defendants had violated his rights to due process, to travel, and to free exercise of his

religion. Muhammad also maintained that his Native American identity deprived

Illinois of jurisdiction over his child‐support dispute, that his Chapter 7 bankruptcy

proceeding had discharged his child‐support obligation, and that the debt of “Michael

Gardner”—the name Muhammad says he is forced under “involuntary servitude” to use

for “business”—should not affect the passport application of “Miykael Muhammad.”

The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The

court construed this suit as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and explained that a state

agency may not be sued under § 1983 and that injunctive relief was not available against

the state officials, who were sued in their individual capacities. And to the extent that

Muhammad suggested that he did not owe child support, the court determined that

(1) he had presented no evidence to show that Illinois lacked jurisdiction over the

child‐support dispute; (2) his child‐support debt could not have been discharged in his

bankruptcy proceeding; and (3) he could not “shed his child support obligations simply

by shedding his name.”

On appeal Muhammad repeats the same arguments that he presented to the

district court. But the district court properly noted that the Illinois Department of

Healthcare and Family Services and its employees acting in their official capacities are

not “persons” subject to liability under § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police,

491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2015). Although

Muhammad now says that he seeks injunctive relief against the state defendants in their

official capacities to prevent an ongoing violation of federal law, see Ex parte Young,

209 U.S. 123, 159–60 (1908), here the state officials followed, not violated, the federal

reporting requirements, and injunctive relief is thus unavailable, see Green v. Mansour,

474 U.S. 64, 73 (1985); Kress v. CCA of Tenn., LLC, 694 F.3d 890, 894 (7th Cir. 2012). To the

extent that Muhammad challenges his passport eligibility being tied to child‐support

debt, Congress has substantial authority to regulate the grounds on which passports
No. 15‐1044    Page 3

may be approved or denied, see Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076, 2096

(2015); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 129 (1958), and Muhammad has given us no reason to

question Congress’s exercise of that authority here. We have considered his remaining

contentions and conclude that none has merit.

This is just one of many frivolous lawsuits Muhammad has filed in federal court.

See, e.g., Muhammad v. McPherson, No. 13‐9308 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 25, 2014); Gardner v. Kirk,

No. 13‐5371 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2013); Gardner v. City of Chicago, No. 13‐5374 (N.D. Ill.

July 31, 2013). Muhammad is hereby ordered to show cause why he should not be

sanctioned for pursuing this frivolous appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 38. His response is due

within 30 days from the date of this decision.

AFFIRMED.