Helene Tonique Laurent Miller v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and CARGO SECURITY CO., INC.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 28, 2024*
Decide August 29, 2024
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1382
HELENE TONIQUE LAURENT
MILLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR and CARGO SECURITY CO.,
INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 24 C 302
Matthew F. Kennelly,
Judge.
O R D E R
Helene Miller seeks review of a district court order restricting her filings. This
case dates back to 2018, when, after Miller had barraged the court with 10 lawsuits over
a five-week stretch, the Executive Committee for the Northern District of Illinois issued
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 2 --

No. 24-1382 Page 2
an order that enjoined her from filing any new civil proceeding in the Northern District
of Illinois without leave of the Committee. The Committee also required her to submit
for review any complaints filed in another jurisdiction that had been transferred to the
Northern District. The Committee informed her that it would deny leave to file any
complaints that were legally frivolous or duplicative of matters already litigated.
In late 2022, Miller filed a claim of employment discrimination in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The court, noting that both Miller and her former employer were in Chicago,
transferred her case to the Northern District of Illinois; it did not resolve her IFP motion.
Miller appealed the transfer decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit,
which allowed her to proceed IFP but denied her appeal, upholding the district court’s
venue determination.
The district judge for the Northern District of Illinois, noting her restricted status
in the district, referred her complaint and request to proceed IFP to the Executive
Committee. The Executive Committee determined that the complaint was frivolous,
denied Miller leave to pursue her claim, and denied her motion to proceed IFP. Based
on this order, the district judge dismissed her case for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, Miller asserts that the Executive Committee’s determination reflected
judicial misconduct and retaliation, and disregarded a right-to-sue letter that she
received from the EEOC. But even a pro se litigant like Miller must comply with Rule
28(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 28, among other things, requires
a litigant to include an argument section that contains the “appellant’s contentions and
the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which
the appellant relies.” FED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A). The argument must “consist[] of more
than a generalized assertion of error, with citations to supporting authority.” Anderson
v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). Miller develops no arguments and there
are no obvious errors, so we dismiss the appeal.
We conclude with the matter of sanctions. Miller filed this appeal just weeks
before we sanctioned her with a Mack filing bar after she failed to raise a discernible
argument for reversal. Miller v. Exec. Comm. of the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Ill., No.
23-2281, 2024 WL 1651669, at *2 (7th Cir. Apr. 17, 2024). Because of this recent sanction,
we decline to impose sanctions now, but we remind Miller that the filing bar remains in
full force for all appeals filed after its imposition.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --