Steven Davis v. WILL COUNTY and ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 8, 2024 *
Decided February 9, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1643
STEVEN DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILL COUNTY and ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILY SERVICES,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 23 C 907
Franklin U. Valderrama,
Judge.
O R D E R
Steven Davis appeals the dismissal of his second amended complaint against
Will County and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). The
dismissal was based on Davis’s failure to state a plausible claim after receiving several
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-1643 Page 2
chances to do so. Because he does not contest the district court’s reasoning, we dismiss
the appeal.
The district court gave Davis three chances to file a legally sufficient complaint.
In his initial complaint, Davis sued Will County and DCFS, alleging without elaboration
that he had been arrested and faced criminal charges in state court. The court dismissed
it, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Davis
amended his complaint to seek damages arising from allegedly unconstitutional state-
court convictions and to assert unrelated grievances against DCFS, including a claim
that the agency took him away from his mother years earlier when he was a child. The
district court again dismissed the complaint. It explained that, because the state
convictions appear intact, his quest for damages was blocked by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 489 (1994). And, the court continued, Davis failed to allege sufficient facts
to state a claim for damages against a department of the state. The court offered Davis
one more chance to amend his complaint. Davis filed his final complaint in which he
stated that he was wrongly imprisoned in Will County for driving under the influence,
criminal trespassing, and possession of cannabis. He also reasserted his claim that DCFS
damaged him by taking him away from his mother when he was a child. Ruling that
this complaint “suffer[ed] from the same deficiencies” as before, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice.
On appeal, Davis does not contest the correctness of the district court’s
conclusion that his suit failed to state a claim, let alone cite any case law or legal
argument that would cast doubt on the ruling. He alludes to the district court’s
dismissal of his case, but he does not criticize the court’s rationale. Although we
construe pro se briefs generously, an appellate brief must contain a discernible
argument challenging the district court’s reason for dismissal and support for that
argument. See FED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46
(7th Cir. 2001). An appellate brief like Davis’s “that does not even try to engage the
reasons the appellant lost has no prospect of success,” Klein v. O'Brien, 884 F.3d 754, 757
(7th Cir. 2018), and must therefore be dismissed, Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545–46.
Davis has pending motions before this court that are largely indecipherable but
appear to seek the relief he sought in the district court. Those motions are DENIED.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --