Antoinette C. Sellers v. City of Chicago Division of Unemployment

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 16, 2024 *
Decided February 20, 2024
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-3190
ANTOINETTE C. SELLERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO DIVISION OF
UNEMPLOYMENT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 23-cv-03750
Nancy L. Maldonado,
Judge.
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-3190 Page 2
O R D E R
Antoinette Sellers believes she was improperly denied unemployment benefits
under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program established by the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Sellers first sued in state court but did not obtain relief. She later
filed a complaint and then an amended complaint in federal court against various city
and state entities (which do not appear to exist), asserting breach of contract and
negligence in connection with her unpaid benefits. The district court screened both
complaints, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and dismissed them without prejudice, explaining
that (1) the court lacked jurisdiction to decide her claims to the extent they challenged
the state-court decision or were based on state law; (2) she had not named any suable
entities; and (3) she did not plead facts that could plausibly support her claims. Sellers
again amended her complaint, which the court dismissed for the same reasons. The
court then gave Sellers a final opportunity to amend her complaint once more, warning
Sellers that her failure to do so by the court’s deadline would result in dismissal of her
case. After Sellers missed the deadline, the court dismissed the case.
Sellers has filed an appellate brief that does not engage the district court’s
reasoning. The brief hardly engages the topics of this case at all; it primarily discusses
healthcare insurance. Although we construe pro se briefs generously, an appellate brief
must contain a discernible argument with citations to supporting authority. See FED. R.
A PP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).
We close by reminding Sellers, consistent with our recent warning in Sellers v.
Howlett, No. 23-2417, 2024 WL 399068, at *1 (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 2024), 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 Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack,
45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --