Selepri S. Amachree v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 13, 2023*
Decided April 21, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1795
SELEPRI S. AMACHREE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND,
Attorney General of the United States, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.
No. 19-cv-1772-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
The confusing facts of this case relate to the arrest and detention of Selepri
Amachree in connection with a stayed immigration removal order. Amachree sued
local and federal defendants for various civil-rights violations. The district court
* After examining the record, we have agreed to decide this case without oral
argument because the appeal is frivolous. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-1795 Page 2
dismissed Amachree’s complaint for failing to comply with Rule 8(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm.
Because of a drug conviction in 2001, Amachree, a lawful permanent resident
originally from Liberia, was placed in immigration removal proceedings and deemed
subject to removal. After Amachree appealed unsuccessfully to the Board of
Immigration Appeals, he petitioned this court for review. We stayed the removal order
during the pendency of the proceedings. In 2007, we remanded the case to the Board for
further consideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006), which held that
simple possession does not qualify as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and
Nationality Act. See Amachree v. Gonzales, No. 05-4055 (7th Cir. Feb. 7, 2007). Over the
next decade the Board did not act on the case, and Amachree took no step to expedite
matters. In 2017, he was arrested and detained by Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. Six months later, an immigration judge granted Amachree relief from
removal and ordered his release from custody.
About a year and a half later, Amachree brought a sprawling complaint in the
Northern District of Illinois against state and federal officials under various laws and
statutes, including the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674, and Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The case was
later transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. There, the district court granted
the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted Amachree leave to amend his
complaint.
Five days after the court’s deadline, Amachree filed a rambling, meandering
amended complaint in two parts. All the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. Amachree responded timely to one motion, 48 days late to another, 76 days
late to the third, and never responded to the fourth.
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the
case with prejudice. The court explained that the complaint’s “persistent verbosity” and
”incoherence” violated Rule 8(a). Amachree’s first attempt at writing a complaint was a
“long and confusing mess” and his second attempt was “a step backward.”
On appeal, Amachree baldly disagrees with the court’s analysis of Rule 8(a) and
insists that the complex nature of his case requires extensive discussion to be

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-1795 Page 3
comprehensible. But the court acted well within its discretion1 in dismissing his
complaint. Rule 8 requires a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and Amachree’s narrative—prolix,
digressive, and full of irrelevant details—is unintelligible. “The dismissal of a complaint
on the ground that it is unintelligible is unexceptionable.” United States ex rel. Garst v.
Lockheed-Martin Corp., 328 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted).
Amachree also argues the district court erred by dismissing his complaint
without giving him a chance to amend it again. But a court need not allow amendment
if doing so would be futile. Always Towing & Recovery, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 2 F.4th
695, 707 (7th Cir. 2021). Amachree’s first attempt at amendment came nowhere close to
curing his complaint’s deficiencies, and the court rightfully decided that prolonging the
case further would be useless.
We close with a note on the performance of Amachree’s counsel, John Gorby.
The district court reprimanded Gorby for practice unacceptable for a licensed attorney,
including his “almost complete disregard for basic pleading standards and Court-
ordered deadlines.” Gorby repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s deadlines and
basic instructions, and similar deficiencies mar his performance in this court. He not
only failed to file a coherent brief but also had to be reminded twice to file an adequate
jurisdictional statement, and technical mistakes necessitated that he refile his briefs. We
order Gorby to show cause within 21 days why he should not be removed or suspended
from the bar of this court or otherwise disciplined under Rule 46(b) or (c) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure. We also direct the clerk of this court to send a copy of
this opinion to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois for
any action it deems appropriate.
AFFIRMED
1 Amachree argues that our review of a dismissal order is de novo, but a dismissal
under Rule 8(a) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion because that standard relates to
the management of litigation. See Stanard v. Nygren, 658 F.3d 792, 797 (7th Cir. 2011)
(citing Davis v. Ruby Foods, Inc., 269 F.3d 818, 820 (7th Cir. 2001)).

-- 3 of 3 --