Matthew Jones v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 21, 2025*
Decided October 24, 2025
Before
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1637
MATTHEW JONES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
INDIANA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, Evansville Division.
No. 3:25-cv-00059-RLY-CSW
Richard L. Young,
Judge.
O R D E R
Matthew Jones sued the United States District Court for Southern District of
Indiana under 18 U.S.C. § 1114, a criminal statute penalizing the killing or attempted
killing of a federal employee. He alleged that court employees attacked him while he
was serving as a “U.S.A. Constituent.” The district court screened his complaint, see 28
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 25-1637 Page 2
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissed it as barred by sovereign immunity and for lack of
standing.
Jones appeals the district court’s judgment but his appellate brief does not
engage with the district court’s reasoning. Although Jones is proceeding pro se, he must
comply with Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure by including in his
brief an argument that explains why the court’s decision was incorrect. Atkins v. Gilbert,
52 F.4th 359, 361 (7th Cir. 2022). He does assert that the Southern District of Indiana
negligently caused him serious bodily injuries, for which he says he incurred one
trillion dollars in medical expenses. But arguments raised for the first time on appeal
are waived. Duncan Place Owners Ass'n v. Danze, Inc., 927 F.3d 970, 974 (7th Cir. 2019).
We close with a warning about sanctions. Although this is Jones’s first case in
this circuit, he has made similar frivolous allegations in nearly a dozen other federal
and state courts. See, e.g., Jones v. USA Dist. Ct. of E. Pa., No. 25-1414, 2025 WL 2126622
(3d Cir. July 29, 2025); Jones v. Sussex Cnty. Super. Ct., No. 144, 2025, 2025 WL 2027979
(Del. July 18, 2025); Jones v. Greenville Police Dep't, No. 4:25-cv-48-DMB-JMV, 2025 WL
1749986 (N.D. Miss. June 2, 2025); Jones v. Cleveland Hopkins Airport, No. 1:25 CV 767,
2025 WL 1256727 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2025); Jones v. Buckhannon-Upshur Cir. Ct.,
No. 2:25-CV-5, 2025 WL 2235430 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 26, 2025). No one is “entitled to file
an endless string of frivolous suits,” and we “may halt the abuse of the judicial process”
by issuing sanctions. Reed v. PF of Milwaukee Midtown, LLC, 16 F.4th 1229, 1232 (7th Cir.
2021). Jones is warned that further vexatious and frivolous filings may result in
sanctions, including fines and a possible filing bar under Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack,
45 F.3d 185, 186–87 (7th Cir. 1995).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --