LOUIS GIANNINI and DAWN GIANNINI v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 13, 2024*
Decided March 18, 2024
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2503
LOUIS GIANNINI and DAWN
GIANNINI,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 23-CV-693-JPS
J.P. Stadtmueller,
Judge.
O R D E R
Louis and Dawn Giannini, who call themselves “stateless persons,” sued in
federal court seeking to void the Internal Revenue Code and gain official recognition of
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-2503 Page 2
their statelessness. Their apparent purpose for suing was to prevent a judgment against
them in tax court for more than $19,000 in overdue taxes. See Giannini v. Comm’r,
No. 4263-22, 2023 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 3141, at *1 (T.C. July 24, 2023) (Gianninis’ federal-
court complaint filed as response to summary judgment motion in Tax Court). After
dismissing the original complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the district court screened the
amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court observed that the Gianninis
failed to address the jurisdictional issue: that, given the limitations on suits against the
United States, the court would have jurisdiction only if the Gianninis were suing to
recover tax that was erroneously or illegally assessed or collected. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1346(a)(1). Because the Gianninis purported to sue for fraud and violations of their
constitutional rights, the court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.
The Gianninis appealed, but their brief does not engage with the rationale for
dismissal or discuss a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, copying sections of
their amended complaint, the Gianninis repeat that they are “stateless persons” who
cannot be made to pay federal income tax. But on appeal they cannot simply rely on
arguments they made in the district court while ignoring the reason they lost.
See Hackett v. City of South Bend, 956 F.3d 504, 510 (7th Cir. 2020). Although we construe
pro se filings generously, an appellate brief must contain a discernible argument with
citations to supporting authority. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman,
241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). The Gianninis’ brief fails to do that, and so we dismiss
their appeal.
We conclude with the matter of sanctions. The United States (which was not
served in the district court but has appeared on appeal) asked us to fine the Gianninis
$5,000 for maintaining this frivolous appeal. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 38. We agree that the
appeal is frivolous and that sanctions for frivolous appeals may be warranted when a
party simply repeats arguments that lost in the district court without presenting any
arguable ground for reversal. See H.A.L. NY Holdings, LLC v. Guinan, 958 F.3d 627, 635–
36 (7th Cir. 2020) (collecting cases). But imposing sanctions is discretionary, id. at 636,
and because this is the Gianninis’ first frivolous appeal in this court, we instead strongly
caution them against raising the same or similar arguments in future appeals, whether
from the district court or the Tax Court. Doing so may result in sanctions against them,
including fines that, if unpaid, may result in a bar on filing papers in any court within
this circuit. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --