Gormidou Y. Lavela v. Aaron M. Peloquin

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 10, 2024*
Decided May 10, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 23-3313
GORMIDOU Y. LAVELA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AARON M. PELOQUIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
No. 23-cv-481-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Gormidou Lavela alleged that his neighbor, Aaron Peloquin, harassed him in
violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3617. The district court dismissed the
complaint for failure to state a claim and instructed Lavela that any amended complaint
must follow certain enumerated instructions. Lavela amended his complaint but did not
* The appellee was not served with process and is not participating in this appeal.
We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appellant’s brief
and the record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument
would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-3313 Page 2
follow those instructions. The court then dismissed the case for failure to comply with
the court’s order and for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
Lavela, who is Black, objects to two interactions that he had with his neighbor
Peloquin, who is white. First, Lavela alleges, Peloquin yelled expletives at him in front
of their apartment building “for no justifiable reasons.” Then three months later, Lavela
alleges, he was walking down a shared hallway in their building when he spotted and
“locked eyes” with Peloquin, who then confronted him. Upon telling Peloquin that he
had “the right to look at anybody,” Lavela says that Peloquin threatened to attack him.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court
emphasized that although the Fair Housing Act protects individuals from a pattern of
racial harassment, it does not reach isolated disputes between neighbors. The court
permitted Lavela to amend his complaint but warned him that if he failed to comply
with the court’s instructions for doing so, his case could be dismissed. The court
instructed Lavela, for example, to use the court’s complaint form and limit his
allegations to those fitting within the form and five supplemental pages.
After Lavela filed a noncompliant amended complaint, spanning 13 pages, the
court dismissed the case. The court explained that Lavela did not comply with its
instructions or state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As the court pointed out,
Lavela continued to allege isolated disputes rather than a pattern of harassment, and his
assertion that Peloquin acted with racial animus continued to be conclusory.
On appeal, Lavela contests only the court’s first ground for dismissing his case,
the failure to follow the court’s order. But setting aside any dispute that he has with the
court’s instructions for amendment, his case may not proceed because he failed to state
a claim. See FED. R. C IV. P. 8(a). The Fair Housing Act prohibits a “pattern of harassment,
invidiously motivated”; it does not prohibit a “quarrel among neighbors” or “isolated
act[s] of discrimination.” Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771, 783 (7th Cir. 2009) (en banc)
(quoting Halprin v. Prairie Single Fam. Homes of Dearborn Park Ass’n, 388 F.3d 327, 330
(7th Cir. 2004)); see also Watters v. Homeowners’ Ass’n at Preserve at Bridgewater, 48 F.4th
779, 786 (7th Cir. 2022) (“[I]solated acts of racial animus are not enough.”). Because
Lavela’s allegations concerning the two isolated incidents did not give rise to a
plausible inference that Peloquin was motivated by racial animus, the district court
properly dismissed the complaint.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --