Michael F. Henry v. Sophia Hall

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 4, 2024*
Decided April 5, 2024
By the Court:
No. 23-2408
MICHAEL F. HENRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOPHIA HALL, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 22-cv-3239
Colleen R. Lawless,
Judge.
O R D E R
Michael Henry sued several Illinois circuit and appellate judges, and the Chief
Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, alleging that their actions in an ongoing state court
proceeding against him violated his constitutional rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
district court dismissed the claims. Henry’s appeal is frivolous, and so we dismiss it.
In 2020, the Village of Orland Park sued Henry in Illinois state court, alleging
that he made automated phone calls that created a nuisance and violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(A). In 2022, Henry sued judges
throughout Illinois, alleging that they tolerated widespread corruption in the state
judiciary and refused to apply Supreme Court precedent in his case. He also alleged
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 23-2408 Page 2
that one circuit judge solicited a bribe from him in exchange for a favorable ruling on
his motion to dismiss the state suit. Henry argued generally that these actions violated
his constitutional right to due process, and he sought damages and the appointment of
a special prosecutor to investigate judicial corruption.
The district court dismissed the case. Because the state proceeding was ongoing,
it determined that abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), was
appropriate. Further, on Henry’s claim for damages, the judges were entitled to
absolute immunity for any actions taken in their judicial capacities. Finally, Henry’s
request for an injunction was barred by § 1983, which states “that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity,
injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or
declaratory relief was unavailable.”
On appeal, Henry has filed a brief that does not comply with the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. His opening brief and reply brief consist mostly of
unsubstantiated accusations levied at the defendants in this suit, his adversaries in the
underlying litigation (who are not parties to his federal lawsuit), and various political
figures. The portions of his brief that do engage in legal analysis appear to litigate the
merits of the nuisance suit or attempt to raise claims not previously asserted before the
district court. Because Henry has failed to advance a legal reason to question the district
court’s rationale for dismissing his case, and he does not develop a discernable
argument for reversal, we dismiss his appeal. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v.
Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001).
This is not the first time Henry has engaged in frivolous litigation in this court,
and we have warned him that further frivolous appeals may result in sanctions.
See Henry v. United States, 360 F. App’x 654, 657 (7th Cir. 2010). We order Henry to show
cause within 14 days why he should not be subject to sanctions for filing this frivolous
appeal despite our warning. See F ED. R. A PP . P. 38. Any monetary penalty must be paid
promptly, or the court will enter an order restricting his future litigation. See Support
Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).
The appeal is DISMISSED, and an order to show cause will be issued.

-- 2 of 2 --