Antonia M. Gonzalez-Nunez v. Christopher M. Verser, Jr.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 15, 2024*
Decided April 16, 2024
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1135
ANTONIA M. GONZALEZ-NUNEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER M. VERSER, JR.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-C-0057
Lynn Adelman,
Judge.
* The Appellees were not served with process and are not participating in these
appeals. We have agreed to decide the cases without oral argument because the appeals
are frivolous. F ED. R. APP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

Nos. 24-1135 & 24-1140 Page 2
No. 24-1140
ANTONIA M. GONZALEZ-NUNEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-C-0029
Lynn Adelman,
Judge.
O R D E R
On the same day in January 2024, Antonia Gonzalez-Nunez filed two civil-rights
lawsuits in federal court arising out of interactions that she and her children had with
Wisconsin courts. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, she sued the Milwaukee County Circuit
Court for discriminating against her son when it docketed a case in his name rather
than hers. (No. 24-C-0029). Second, she sued her child’s father for misconduct in
custody proceedings (e.g., disobeying child-custody and financial-support orders) that
deprived her of her constitutional rights. (No. 24-C-0057). The district court dismissed
both complaints at screening, concluding that Gonzalez-Nunez could not sue on behalf
of her son without an attorney, was not deprived of any federally protected right, and
could not sue the father under § 1983 because he was not acting under color of state
law.
Gonzalez-Nunez filed separate appeals with this court. Because they stem from a
similar factual background, we now consolidate both appeals for disposition. Her
appellate briefs, however, do not comply with Rule 28(a)(8) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. They do not engage with the district court’s reasons for its
decisions, advance no cogent arguments, and cite no law other than references to
statutes that do not bear on these proceedings. 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; Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545
(7th Cir. 2001).
We conclude with the matter of sanctions. Gonzalez-Nunez has several unrelated
appeals pending before our court. We now warn her that further frivolous appeals may

-- 2 of 3 --

Nos. 24-1135 & 24-1140 Page 3
result in sanctions, 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

-- 3 of 3 --