Antoinette C. Sellers v. DOCTOR HOWLETT and ST. LOUIS UNIVERSITY

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 31, 2024 *
Decided February 2, 2024
By the Court:
No. 23-2417
ANTOINETTE C. SELLERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DOCTOR HOWLETT and ST. LOUIS
UNIVERSITY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 23-cv-3749
Sharon Johnson Coleman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Antoinette Sellers believes that a cancerous mass detected in her lung more than
thirty years ago was caused by her prior work in a research laboratory at St. Louis
University. In 2023, she sued the university and the doctor who ran the research
laboratory, alleging that she only recently became aware of the causal connection when
she overheard a conversation (details of which are obscure) between two women at a
laundromat. At screening, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court dismissed Sellers’s
suit as untimely. The court noted that Sellers had filed her suit well beyond the two-
year statute of limitations for personal injury suits in Illinois, and she could not avail
* The Appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this
appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-2417 Page 2
herself of the discovery rule because she made no plausible allegations that in 2022 she
discovered a connection between her injuries and the defendants.
Sellers has filed an appellate brief that does not engage the district court’s
reasoning. The brief consists mostly of unexplained attachments, including excerpts of
an amicus brief from an unrelated case, as well as portions of the doctor’s resume.
Although we construe pro se briefs generously, an appellate brief must contain a
discernible argument with citations to supporting authority. See F ED. R. A PP. P.
28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).
We conclude with the matter of sanctions. Sellers has several unrelated appeals
pending before our court, and she appears to have filed briefs that are substantially
similar to her brief here. We now warn Sellers that further frivolous appeals may result
in sanctions against her, including fines that, if unpaid, may result in a bar on filing
papers in any court within this circuit. See Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack,
45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --