Steven Lamarr Davis v. Illinois Secretary of State

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 13, 2025*
Decided February 13, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2859
STEVEN LAMARR DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ILLINOIS SECRETARY OF STATE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:24-cv-07726
Lindsay C. Jenkins,
Judge.
O R D E R
Steven Davis sued the Illinois Secretary of State for revoking his driver’s license.
The district court dismissed his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
* 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 brief and record
adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 24-2859 Page 2
Davis, a detainee at the Will County Adult Detention Facility, filed a form
complaint in the district court challenging the revocation of his driver’s license when he
was 17. The court screened his complaint, pointed out that Davis did not allege a basis
for federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, and directed him to file a statement
identifying the source of federal jurisdiction over his case.
Davis then filed a jurisdictional statement that invoked 16 U.S.C. § 2633, which
addresses certain limitations on federal jurisdiction. Because neither that provision nor
anything else in Davis’s submission supplied a basis for federal jurisdiction, the court
dismissed his case.
Davis’s appellate brief recounts the allegations of his complaint but does not
engage the district court’s reasoning. We agree with the district court that this is
insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. He cites no federal statute or
constitutional provision that could support federal-question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331; E. Cent. Ill. Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Prather Plumbing & Heating, Inc.,
3 F.4th 954, 958–59 (7th Cir. 2021), and his own pleadings show that the parties are not
diverse, as required to confer diversity jurisdiction, see City of E. St. Louis v. Netflix, Inc.,
83 F.4th 1066, 1071 (7th Cir. 2023).
Davis’s frequent filings in this circuit prompt us to address the matter of
sanctions. Since 2023, he has filed five cases in the Northern District of Illinois against
various state and federal entities; three of the five were dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. From these cases, Davis has filed four appeals, two that he
voluntarily dismissed and two that are pending. See Davis v. Soc. Sec. Admin., et al., 24-
2966; Davis v. Will Cnty. Public Def., 24-2970. These appeals all appear frivolous—
indeed, none appears to be within the jurisdiction of federal courts. We now warn Davis
that further frivolous appeals may result in sanctions, including fines that, if unpaid,
may result in a bar on filing papers in civil lawsuits in any court within this circuit.
See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --