Cedric Greene v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 27, 2025*
Decided February 4, 2025
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2710
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 24 C 8611
Robert W. Gettleman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Cedric Greene has sued the United States, alleging that unspecified restrictions
are prohibiting him from obtaining reinstatement of his Section 8 benefits. (Section 8 of
the Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. § 1437f, helps state housing authorities subsidize rent
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. F ED .
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 24-2710 Page 2
for eligible low-income households.) Because Greene moved to proceed in forma
pauperis, the district court screened the complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a
claim. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).
On appeal, Greene argues that the district court erred by not allowing him to
amend his complaint, but district courts may deny leave to amend when amendment
would be futile. Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chi. & Nw. Ind., 786 F.3d
510, 519–20 (7th Cir. 2015). That is the case here. Greene has sued the United States,
asserting that other potential defendants have passed away. But the United States
enjoys sovereign immunity unless Congress has waived it. Dolan v. U.S. Postal Service,
546 U.S. 481, 484 (2006). Greene identifies no waiver that might apply in a proposed
amended claim. Because sovereign immunity is a “threshold grounds for denying
audience to a case on the merits,” Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisc., 836 F.3d 818,
823 (7th Cir. 2016), dismissal without leave to amend was appropriate.
This court notes that Greene’s brief on appeal is nonresponsive to the district
court’s order and raises frivolous arguments irrelevant to his original grievance.
Further, we are aware that Greene has filed similar frivolous suits in other jurisdictions,
and courts have sanctioned him, sometimes with filing restrictions, for litigating
frivolously or vexatiously. To the extent that his reference in this suit to a “restriction”
may reflect his bad faith effort to avoid filing bars elsewhere, we warn Greene that any
further frivolous appeals here may result in sanctions against him, including fines that,
if unpaid, may result in a bar on filing papers in any court within this circuit. See
Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --