Helene Tonique Laurent Miller v. Carol M. Howard

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 20, 2024 *
Decided September 20, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1314
HELENE TONIQUE LAURENT
MILLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CAROL M. HOWARD, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 20 C 7437
Virginia M. Kendall,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Helene Miller, who has a history of filing frivolous and repetitive federal
lawsuits, appeals a district court’s judgment dismissing her civil rights case for lack of
prosecution. We affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 24-1314 Page 2
In 2020, Miller first brought this action in Illinois state court, alleging
constitutional violations in connection with her indictment in an ongoing state criminal
case against her. After the defendants (an Illinois state judge, the State of Illinois, and
the City of Chicago) removed the case to federal court, District Judge Dow stayed the
case until the underlying criminal proceeding was resolved. In 2022, Judge Dow
ordered a joint status report on the state-court case. Miller never responded to the
order.
In 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. Miller
also did not respond to this motion, which Judge Kendall (who had since been
reassigned the case) in turn granted.
On appeal, Miller does not engage with the district court’s reasons for dismissing
her case, see FED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(8), and instead asserts that both district judges were
biased against her—as reflected, for instance, in their rulings to deny several motions of
hers. But adverse judicial rulings alone will almost never suffice to establish judicial
bias. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); see United States v. Barr, 960 F.3d 906,
920 (7th Cir. 2020). And to the extent Miller sees bias in the lack of a response to her
motion to recuse Judge Kendall, we see nothing in this record—which includes a flurry
of other motions filed by Miller—that raises any reasonable concern about the judge’s
impartiality. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
One final matter. Miller filed this appeal before we sanctioned her this past
spring with a Mack filing bar. Miller v. Exec. Comm. of the U.S. Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of
Ill., No. 23-2281, 2024 WL 1651669, at *2 (7th Cir. Apr. 17, 2024). Because of this recent
sanction, we decline to impose additional sanctions now, but we remind Miller that the
filing bar remains in full force for all appeals filed after its imposition.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --