Hannibal Mu Bey v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 9, 2026*
Decided June 11, 2026
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2409
HANNIBAL MU BEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:23-cv-02721
Franklin U. Valderrama,
Judge.
O R D E R
Hannibal Mu Bey sued the Social Security Administration (SSA) after one of its
employees allegedly gave him an application form for social security insurance rather
than disability insurance benefits. This lawsuit is the third of four lawsuits Mu Bey has
brought against the SSA concerning his efforts to receive disability insurance benefits,
all of which were dismissed. In this third lawsuit, he contended that the agency
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. FED. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 25-2409 Page 2
conspired and discriminated against him based on his Moorish-American identity, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. He also asserted state-law claims for false
arrest, assault, battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and conspiracy.
The district court granted the SSA’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Mu Bey
failed to state a claim. See FED. R. C IV. P. 12(b)(6). According to the court, Mu Bey failed
to identify a constitutional right or allege that the SSA was acting under color of state
law, as required to state a claim under the federal civil rights statutes he invoked. As to
his state-law claims, the court dismissed them on the merits because it was “absolutely
clear” that Mu Bey failed to plausibly allege facts to support any of his claims. And
because amendment would be futile, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On appeal, Mu Bey does not engage with the district court’s conclusion that his
complaint failed to state a claim. We are mindful of Mu Bey’s pro se status, but he still
must comply with Rule 28(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and include
an argument explaining why the district court’s decision was incorrect. FED. R. A PP. P.
28(a)(8)(A); see Atkins v. Gilbert, 52 F.4th 359, 361 (7th Cir. 2022). Because Mu Bey does
not develop an argument contesting the district court’s rationale in this case, we dismiss
the appeal. See FED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46
(7th Cir. 2001).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --