Anderson v. Hardman et al
Decision Date | 23 February 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 00-1171,00-1171 |
Citation | 241 F.3d 544 |
Parties | (7th Cir. 2001) Bobby J. Anderson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alfred Hardman, et al., Defendants-Appellees |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 99 C 7282--Wayne R. Andersen, Judge.
Bobby J. Anderson (submitted), Menard, IL, pro se.
Before Flaum, Chief Judge, and Ripple and Rovner, Circuit Judges.
Illinois inmate Bobby Anderson filed a pro se civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, alleging that various state and federal correctional officers conspired to have him "unlawfully detained" in federal custody from 1986 to 1989 on the basis of a "falsified indictment." The district court dismissed Anderson's complaint under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a federal claim, and Anderson appeals.
Mindful that pro se pleadings are held to less exacting standards than those prepared by counsel and are to be liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam); McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000), the district court extensively analyzed Anderson's complaint under a variety of theories before concluding that it failed to state a federal claim. We too construe pro se filings liberally, Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 535 n.10 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), but still we must be able to discern cogent arguments in any appellate brief, even one from a pro se litigant. Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure so requires--a brief must contain an argument consisting of more than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority. Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Mathis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 133 F.3d 546, 548 (7th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court, 73 F.3d 669, 673 (7th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Yet Anderson offers no articulable basis for disturbing the district court's judgment. Instead, he simply repeats certain allegations of his complaint and cites one irrelevant case.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Santiago v. Streeval
...Cir. 2013). Santiago counters that we construe pro se filings liberally and hold them "to less exacting standards." Anderson v. Hardman , 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). We do not need to decide the waiver issue. Even if these arguments were not waived, Santiago has not shown that no rea......
-
Loubser v. U.S., 4:04-cv-75-AS.
...Sheahan, 526 F.3d 973, 977 (7th Cir.2008) (citing Insolia v. Philip Morris, Inc., 216 F.3d 596, 599 (7th Cir.2000)); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001) ("[W]e cannot fill the void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal research."). Accordingly, the Court......
-
Williams v. Cnty. of Cook
...WL 5018523, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 2, 2010). 6. The Court has an obligation to construe Williams's pleadings liberally, Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir.2001), and a pro se litigant is not required to explicitly refer to the proper statute or legal theory in order to state a ca......
-
White v. Ill. State Police
...issues conclusively decided by Berron .24 It is not the court's role to make arguments on the parties’ behalf. See Anderson v. Hardman , 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001) (courts should not "fill the void by crafting arguments and performing the necessary legal research").B. Meaningful Righ......